God said to go forth and multiply.
The Taliban was a religious movement as well as a revolutionary movement. It managed to take power in Afghanistan. If you check out some of the more extreme christian fundamentalist sects in the US of A, you will find that their stated political agenda proposes exerting as much control over the moral behavior of its citizens as the Taliban attempted to implement after gaining control in Afghanistan.
Hence the comparison.
And we need to breed more soldiers! More blue-eyed, blond-haired babies to stem the onrushing tide of… THEM. The swarthy evildoers that threaten us from all sides.
PF: *On the other hand, I think it’s sort of almost an insult to anyone who actually has to live under Islamic fundamentalist government to compare the Taliban to the US. *
Of course, the OP was comparing the Taliban not to the US in general or its government, but to the American fundamentalist Christian right wing, as I said before.
Even then, of course, it’s still a gross exaggeration, although IMO fringe extremists like the Christian Reconstructionists are uncomfortably comparable. (Capital punishment for adultery and blasphemy? Yikes.)
That was because there were only 2 people on earth then. Its not necessary Now.
Oh wait let me: 2x5=10
I like the part about the death penalty for not being a christian. Also for not being the “correct” sort of christian.
Read the link. Then let us know if you still think America doesn’t have its own version of the Taliban.
Less servants.
Fundies don’t want people fucking for the sake of fucking. If you aren’t making babies you’re making sin.
Divorce became more acceptable and more easily obtainable once more women were working outside the home. A woman with a salary of her own is less likely to stick with a husband that is abusive, philandering, what have you.
The Moral Fascists (Thank you, Metacom, I like that phrase) will first push the idea of women staying at home to care for their children, and then push the idea that all married women should have children. Thus, more women are dependent on their husbands, and more people are under the thumbs of the Moral Fascists. This, in their minds, is a good thing.
[Ned Flanders]“I’ve even kept kosher just to be on the safe side!”[/NF]
In order to protect the sanctity of marriage, Al Franken suggests a Three Strikes Law. Under Three Strikes, anyone who has been divorced three or more times would not be allowed to get married again. That would weed out the habitual divorcers and drive down the divorce statistics. 
We’re bringing the war back home
Where it ought to have been before!
We’ll kill all the bees
And spiders and flies
And we wont play in iceboxes lying on their sides!
Who am us, anyway?
This is supposed to help sanctify marriages? It sounds more like they’ll be encouraging marriages of convenience. “We’ll give you money if you get married…no really, read the policy; in fact, we’ll give you some money right now if you promise to get married in the next year - don’t have a partner? Well, you better find one, or you’ll miss out. Make sure you get one with the right body parts, that’s all we ask…”
Jesus, save me from your followers. :rolleyes:
(ok, not all of them, but still)
We’re discussing an article by a professor at a cracker box university in Utah?
Utah?
When the politicians start to take this radical view publicly, and start a movement, let me know, otherwise, I’m just going chalk that up to inane chatter on the extreme right.
As Ed Helms put it, “Thy loom and churn had best be still on the sabbath, Goodman” :eek:
“I told him, be fruitful and multiply. Not in those words.” - Woody Allen
This is one of those rare instances in which I agree with you in principle. Senator Fatcat will always do whatever is politically expedient. It is, after all, a matter of survival. I disagree, however, that it is not imminent. Senator Fatcat is no longer a hand-wringing leftist; he is a finger-shaking rightist. Rightists seized power while leftists fought over the rights of trees. We are entering a new Victorian age, and I suspect it will last twenty years or more.
You know, it’s rather nice to see some folks on the right admitting that heterosexuals made a mess of marriage long before gay marriage became an issue. I am rather old fashioned when it comes to marriage in that I believe it is a commitment and should be a Sacrament; on the other hand, I think forcing atheists to get married in church or consider their marriage sacred is ludicrous.
To me, the people talking about imposing these laws are, as usual, overlooking the fact that we live in an imperfect world. People do marry people who are abusive, philanderers, etc. Things do go wrong.
There are also perfectly valid reasons for remaining childless. A friend of mine does not want kids because between her health problems and her husband’s health problems, the odds of them having a healthy child are lower than they’d like them to be. I’ve never married and, if I do, I’ll be old enough that the odds of having a child with Down’s Syndrome are too high. I know I don’t have what it takes to raise a handicapped child. When I was younger, I was concerned that between my own personality quirks and the way I was raised, I would be emotionally abusive to any child I had and inflict on her some of the same scars which were inflicted on me. I could not, in good conscience, do that.
As for such things becoming law, given the number of politicians who’ve made a lot of noise about family values, yet admitted to divorces, affairs, etc. I don’t think it will happen. At least, I hope it won’t.
CJ
You have two choices:
-
Accept the lumping together of ordinary reasonable Christians with the fascist busybodys that are the subject of this thread, or
-
Accept an insulting label for the latter (A non-insulting label is not an option – any label that precisely affixes only to the fascist busybodys will become insulting through its association with obnoxious people even if it wasn’t insulting to begin with.)
The former is unjust on its face, so you’ll just have to deal with the latter.
I disagree. The difference is in ability to actually do what they want, not in what they want. Refraining from evil because you lack the power to carry it out doesn’t count.