Whoa, they definitely need to use more lube.
the First Amendment actually protects the right to proselytize. Not to persecute, of course.
And of course that charge is especially weak leveled against observant Jews, who are not noted for proselytizing anyway.
Tao, if Chaim were an evangelical Christian bigot, you would have a strong point here. But are you aware what Orthodox Jews believe are binding on us Gentiles? Five, six, or seven (depending on which source you consult) “Noachic commandments” handed down to Adam, Seth, or Noah. The 631 mitzvoth such as no pork. no shellfish,. no linseywoolsey, forcing a rapist to marryt his victimn, etc.? They’re all binding onoly on Jews. And the Noachic commandments? Horribly oppressive thiungs like prohibiting murder.
It’s the [del]morons[/del] [del]bigoted assholes[/del] evangelicl Christians who believe the whole (Protestant) Bible is “the Word of God” (despite its saying the contrary) eho want to force you to abide by their beliefs.
Sometimes, “the Tao which is posted before you is not the Tao which you should read.” (Lao-Tse, slightly modified) 
You are correct that proselytizing was a poor choice of word.
Although, as I’m sure you’re aware, Jews aren’t the only ones who keep certain prohibitions. Adventists tend to observe Saturday, and to a lesser extent some Old Testament dietary restrictions, for example.
What really frustrates me about Christianity (and other religions I’m sure, but I lack everyday experience with) is the amount of hate I here coming out of it’s adherents. Why? I heard the literature growing up. We’re supposed to love each other. Why can’t we love each other? Why do we have to hate people for being gay? Why can’t they have a normal life too? Why do we have to enforce gender roles? Why can’t we just let good people follow the gender in their heart?
The current prohibitions cause unnecessary suffering. I don’t care where whether the human soul is an accident of nature or a divine spark. As long as they don’t hurt others people need to be free to follow their nature.
I believe this freedom is the core of human rights. It’s freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and speech. A person’s mind is their own, no one elses. As is their body. Who they love, that is up to them, and should be respected. Not discriminated against. Not hated for it.
I think there’s been a big misunderstanding then. I was mocking Fundies. cmkeller it appears thought I was mocking Judaism, quite reasonably since the link mocked a religious document sourced in both religions, and generally more observed by his. I thought he was standing up for the fundies, and let him get taste of what I have for the fundies, and here we are.
cmkeller, I am sorry for mocking your religion. I was aiming at proselytizers, but that wasn’t fair to more tolerant adherents.
I’m not accusing cmkeller personally of bigotry, but it’s ridiculous to argue that Orthodox Jews in general who disapprove of homosexuality aren’t trying to force their views on others. Of course they are, every time they vote for a candidate or ballot measure that opposes marriage equality for gays.
Anti-gay-marriage Orthodox Jews were crucial swing voters in an upset victory for an anti-gay-marriage Republican in a traditionally Democratic New York district last fall, for example:
I doubt there are many Orthodox Jews in North Carolina, and certainly not enough to make a difference in the fate of Amendment 1 at the polls. But those who did vote probably had no more compunction than their Christian counterparts about trying to force their anti-gay beliefs on people who don’t share their faith.
Here’s what it’s all about! 
Awesome toon!
“Excuse me, sir, have you heard the good news about Moses!”
I’d like it a ton more if, instead of a grateful smile, the Equality Runner flipped Obama the bird while the people who supported Equality all along helped the runner up.
I’m not sure I agree.
Is a voter that selects a candidate because of that candidate’s race a bigot?
Is that candidate going to preferentially treat that race in policy?
Possibly, yes. But not necessarily.
If someone is electing a white man because white men historically haven’t had any power in a given society (let’s say we’re on Mars), and they don’t expect this particular white man necessarily to govern better, but they do believe that people tend to listen more to people who look like their own family, and that by electing a white man the poor white people will finally have someone in office who listens to them in the way that green people always have had, they’re not necessarily a bigot. There can be reasons for voting for someone based on race without having any preconceived notions about race.
If someone selects a candidate because they believe that members of that candidate’s race are inherently more qualified than members of another race, then unless we’re in Greyhawk where Sun Elves get a +2 to Intelligence, they’re a bigot.
In any case, I’m not seeing how this question addresses the issue of voting for an anti-gay candidate. If you vote for an anti-black candidate or an anti-male candidate or an anti-disabled candidate or an anti-gay candidate, you’re supporting bigotry; and if you cast that vote in order to support bigotry, you’re a bigot. That’s different from voting for someone based on their own race.
Not necessarily but probably.
Race is an irrelevant qualification.
I suppose someone voting for Obama because they wanted to see a black person finally become president does not make that person a bigot but I am hard pressed to come up with examples where voting based on race has anything other than a bigoted component to it.
I’m entertained by these attempts to paint bigotry as something other than bigotry. Whack-a-Mole’s statement:
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Race is an irrelevant qualification.
[/QUOTE]
is correct. End of story.
No you’re not. You’re entertained by your imagination of liberals, as usual, but your imagination is so divorced from reality that it owes alimony.
Oh, another Karnac!
As far as the little dig, not bad. I’d give it a 4.13. It would be higher except for the logic problem present by implying that there are degrees of divorce and that alimony being granted is a function of those degrees. Fix that and I think I move it up to a 6.5 or 7.0. A level that garners and appreciative chuckle. But please don’t be discouraged by that. It’s way higher than Luci’s average of 1.78. And just look at all the effort he puts into it.
You may be unaware of the magic of the written word. It’s able to convey thoughts from one brain to another. When you type idiotic things about how amused you are at things that never happened, those thoughts of yours show up in other heads; fortunately, they’re clearly identifiable as the imaginations of a stunted, deluded intellect.
You needn’t worry.
I was in Ohio on business this week. In the lobby of the hotel, four people sitting having coffee were talking about gay marriage - I’d presume this was a response to the President’s comments on the matter - and stating, with complete sincerity, that gay marriage would inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia and beastiality.
So I can’t say the NC vote surprises me.
Yet, I read it, respond to it, and write it. Pretty cool trick, huh?
You’re trying to deflect here. My comment in this thread was in direct response to the two posts directly preceding mine. One of which was yours. So, I guess you choose to not attempt to argue for your own position.
Which, I guess, proves you’re not an idiot. But, and of this I can assure you, you’re not 50% as smart as you think you are. And that dig is not aimed at your intellect, which I’d place as above average, as much as it is as haughty, pedantic tone in just about every thread you participate in.
Wait—you’re not John Kerry, are you? :eek:
Okay, again: insane. I argued for my position when I, y’know, argued for my position, in the post you responded to. You responded to it by characterizing it as “paint[ing] bigotry as something other than bigotry.” In other words, you made a claim, but you didn’t argue for your OWN position, you just made a snotty little claim about how entertaining it was.
And now, after I put forth a position and defended it, and you made a snotty little content-free response, you turn around and suggest that you were making a direct (and presumably substantive) response to my post and that I’m not arguing for my own post.
Thus: insane.
If you’d like me not to treat you like an intellectually stunted lunatic, try addressing my argument directly instead of making giggling like a moron at it. Explain what you see as the flaws in my reasoning. Explain why you think that, despite the reasoning I suggested, such a position must necessarily be bigoted.
Or you can keep up the imbecilic giggling, because that’s a lot easier. I’ll understand, and I’ll continue to treat you in a way that you see as haughty.