Re: The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
What about the prolife argument? Nat hentoff is prolife and an atheist. I'm not equating issues just going off on tangent. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:36 PM, "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, [email protected] wrote: >> Wait...I realized the exception...if you are not a Christian? Higher standard does not apply. In the argument over gay rights in general? It is pretty fair to say most opposing gay rights tend to cite a religious basis behind their opposition. > > Or they make arguments about "natural law" claiming that the argument is non-religious... and yet everyone who makes these arguments happens to *be* religious. (Remember that debate I referred to in the "sigh." thread? Certain people -- including a good friend of mine -- didn't take kindly to my suggestion that "natural law" is (or has become) another buzzword like "family values" or "intelligent design". It's one of those stealth terms that everyone sees through ... like in those movies when someone tries to hide by holding a bush in front of them while they tiptoe, and everyone else can see the tiptoeing bush.) > > -- > dadl-ot mailing list > http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot