Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[yo mama]

hardly an endorsement of gay marriage.

1415270[/snapback]

 

 

 

I never said it was. But you said mairage is not a right. And that was an incorrect statement of law.

 

Considering Redhail was decieded almost 30 years ago, and further considering the varying social norms around the country when it comes to openly gay relationships, how long do you really think it is going to take for gay unions to be considered within the spectrum of a "traditional family?" In case you hadn't noticed, that's already happening in some regions of the Nation.

 

Fact: all people - including gays - have the general, fundamental right to marry by virture of being a human being to whom the US Constitution applies. And those who oppose another's choice of spouse attempt to restrict that right. The over-arching holding in Redhail merely states that to restrict that fundamental right, government must have more than a "rational basis" (the lowest level of constitutional scruity) for doing so.

 

The remainder of my post was merely a warning that if we allow a specific religious group's beliefs to deny one kind of constitutionally protected right, then our religious freedoms are equally at risk.

[skins]

Dam, I go to the Nat's opening day and Asz and Yo come in and bat cleanup...

 

Edited April 11, 2006 by skins

[tonorator]

Fact: all people - including gays - have the general, fundamental right to marry by virture of being a human being to whom the US Constitution applies.  And those who oppose another's choice of spouse attempt to restrict that right.  The over-arching holding in Redhail merely states that to restrict that fundamental right, government must have more than a "rational basis" (the lowest level of constitutional scruity) for doing so. 

 

 

1415313[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

as with any legal judgement there is a fair amount of interpretation of the implications, no?

 

in this case, clearly the judges were looking to support the traditional family and the well being of children. they endorsed this goal with the notion that marriage is indeed the right of all people. i would assume if you polled all the justices, they would then go on to share that the marriage they are supporting as a right is indeed between a man and a woman for the purposes of child rearing. it is right there in the text of the judgement.

 

based on this, i don't then extend this judgement to the issue at hand. if anything, it support my argument that marriage primarily exists to support traditional families in raising children.

 

the leap that we must take to then apply marriage to other consenting relationships is not just a small step that we need to tack on. it does open up major questions as to what marriage should constitute and how it should be defined. i submit that if homosexual marriage is permitted and put on par with traditional marriage, then you have indeed opened the door to other configurations of marriage as well.

 

since a child can only have one mother and one father and most agree that it is ideal for all of them to be together and supported, i don't see the reason to redefine marriage to account for other relationship variations.

[spain]

Dam, I do to the Nat's opening day and Asz and Yo come in and bat cleanup...

 

 

1415326[/snapback]

 

 

 

Proving that you are all "switch hitters"...

[cliaz]

Ok, I will try to make this simple.

 

Take two people A & B.  Both are healthy human beings, with no problems or defects with there sexual reproductive systems, and both are 18 year-old virgins, and neither one is named Mary.

 

With me so far?

 

Person A chooses to only have sex with adult humans, which are of the same sex.

 

Person B chooses to not have sex with any humans.

 

If neither person A or person B changes their behavior, neither one will ever have any children.  If either person A or person B, chooses to change their behavior, and begins to have sex with adult humans of the opposite sex, it is possible that either one of them will have children.

 

If you are going to be completely objective, and you argue that Nature is proof that person A is "wrong" then how can you possibly argue that nature is not also proof that person B is "wrong"?

 

Oh, and by the way.  Nature also created species that can reproduce by themselves, and species that can spontaneously change sex, and still reproduce.  Nature also produces species other than humans, that play with the genitals of others of the same species and sex.  What little lesson is that suppose to give?  That God gave animals the capacity to sin, that God hates gays and not bisexuals or is this another one of Gods, see here is what you should not do, lessons?

 

I think that you would be better off leaving "nature" out of this argument.

 

1415295[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I’m not talking about choices here (for the last time.) I am simply pointing out that in the laws of nature homosexuality is wrong mamals. I can't make it any clearer. You are talking about choices, I am not. I am pointing out the fact that:

 

1. If nature intended for homosexuality to be the normal then we would be Asexual. Our species requires a male and a female to reproduce. Period. There fore homosexuality is wrong in the human realm. Period. No Person A, Person B crap. We require a male to insert his (p)enis into a woman vagin(a) and to ejaculate sperm in which the egg is fertized. No (p)enis on (p)enis rubbing the results in a baby. HENCE for the last time it is wrong in the order of nature.

2. I know there are species that are asexual but we are not talking about snails, frogs and slugs here. If homosexuality was considered right we wouldn’t need 2 sexs.

 

this isn't rocket science, it's simple laws of nature.

Edited April 11, 2006 by cliaz

[skins]

I’m not talking about choices here (for the last time.) I am simply pointing out that in the laws of nature homosexuality is wrong mamals.  I can't make it any clearer.  You are talking about choices, I am not.  I am pointing out the fact that:

 

1. If nature intended for homosexuality to be the normal then we would be Asexual.  Our species requires a male and a female to reproduce.  Period.  There fore homosexuality is wrong in the human realm.  Period.  No Person A, Person B crap.  We require a male to insert his (p)enis into a woman vagin(a) and to ejaculate sperm in which the egg is fertized.  No (p)enis on (p)enis rubbing the results in a baby.  HENCE for the last time it is wrong in the order of nature.

2. I know there are species that are asexual but we are not talking about snails, frogs and slugs here.  If homosexuality was considered right we wouldn’t need 2 sexs.

 

this isn't rocket science, it's simple laws of nature.

 

1415341[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Cliaz, that doodoo has nothing to do with the Constitution and US law.

[The Misfit]

I don't know if this was posted someplace else, but I really liked this piece from Garry Wills in the Sunday NY Times, and it's sorta relevant, in that it makes a good case, from one Christian point of view, on why Christians should stay the hell out of politics, and vice versa ...

 

Christ Among the Partisans

By GARRY WILLS

 

THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.

 

This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.

 

Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.

 

But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.

 

The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.

 

To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.

 

The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.

 

Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.

 

Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"

 

That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.

 

The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.

 

He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.

 

It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.

 

The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.

 

It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.

 

Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).

 

If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.

 

He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.

 

The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.

[cliaz]

Cliaz, that doodoo has nothing to do with the Constitution and US law.

 

1415359[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I know, but this guy is talking about choices people make and I was simply pointing out what I stated above.

 

I'm done with it though.

 

and you are suppose to back me up. I got you covered like a rubber, G but where is the love?

Edited April 11, 2006 by cliaz

[tonorator]

I don't know if this was posted someplace else, but I really liked this piece from Garry Wills in the Sunday NY Times, and it's sorta relevant, in that it makes a good case, from one Christian point of view, on why Christians should stay the hell out of politics, and vice versa ...

1415362[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

good article. i've never stated that the law should be this way or that because of my religious beliefs. i've said that the current laws are consistent with my beliefs, which is cool. when you drill down, i'm against changing the law due to what marriage represents in our society and the role it plays in rearing children. that is why we have it, and it doesn't need to be changed.

[skins]

I know, but this guy is talking about choices people make and I was simply pointing out what I stated above.

 

I'm done with it though.

 

and you are suppose to back me up.  I got you covered like a rubber, G but where is the love?

1415365[/snapback]

 

I cant back you up when yer talking about silly stuff. I will make it simple: a ghey person does not "choose" their attraction to the same sex any more than you choose to be attracted to one legged midgets covered in chunky peanut butter, or Spain to a shorn ram slathered in Crisco. It is not choices, it is sexual attraction and that is a natural part of us. But that isnt really the issue.

 

We treat Americans the same under the law. The contract of marriage under our current law provides benefits to hetero couples and denies them to homo couples based on the gender of the individuals in the couples. That violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. No right thinking American wants the law to discriminate based on gender or sexual preference or most anything else. We all want to be treated equally.

 

I know you would be bummed if they criminalized dwarf humping and locked you up. You would say it was unfair and it would be unfair.

 

Put yerself in other people's shoes. And as for the natural stuff, well, you may be right. I dont pretend to know. I just know I want to live in a country where people are treated fairly and equally under the law. We all should want that.

[Caveman_Nick]

1. If nature intended for homosexuality to be the normal then we would be Asexual.  Our species requires a male and a female to reproduce.  Period.  There fore homosexuality is wrong in the human realm.  Period.  No Person A, Person B crap.  We require a male to insert his (p)enis into a woman vagin(a) and to ejaculate sperm in which the egg is fertized.  No (p)enis on (p)enis rubbing the results in a baby.  HENCE for the last time it is wrong in the order of nature.

2. I know there are species that are asexual but we are not talking about snails, frogs and slugs here.  If homosexuality was considered right we wouldn’t need 2 sexs.

 

1415341[/snapback]

 

I take it you are also opposed to oral sex, because that can not result in child bearing. You must also be opposed to hitting the brown eye and the existence of hot kitty on kitty sex. These things must just be wrong, because the natural order of sex is to produce children.

 

Another reason not to want to move to Planet Cliaz

Edited April 11, 2006 by Caveman_Nick

[cliaz]

I cant back you up when yer talking about silly stuff. I will make it simple: a ghey person does not "choose" their attraction to the same sex any more than you choose to be attracted to one legged midgets covered in chunky peanut butter, or Spain to a shorn ram slathered in Crisco. It is not choices, it is sexual attraction and that is a natural part of us. But that isnt really the issue.

 

We treat Americans the same under the law. The contract of marriage under our current law provides benefits to hetero couples and denies them to homo couples based on the gender of the individuals in the couples. That violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. No right thinking American wants the law to discriminate based on gender or sexual preference or most anything else. We all want to be treated equally.

 

I know you would be bummed if they criminalized dwarf humping and locked you up. You would say it was unfair and it would be unfair.

 

Put yerself in other people's shoes. And as for the natural stuff, well, you may be right. I dont pretend to know. I just know I want to live in a country where people are treated fairly and equally under the law. We all should want that.

 

1415423[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I take it you are also opposed to oral sex, because that can not result in child bearing.  You must also be opposed to hitting the brown eye and the existence of hot kitty on kitty sex.  These things must just be wrong, because the natural order of sex is to produce children.

 

Another reason not to want to move to Planet Cliaz

 

1415432[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

 

everyone is missing the point. Maybe I need to type slower....

 

Someone brought up that homosexuality isn't wrong. I'm not saying your "feelings" are right or wrong, I'm pointing out the fact that in the natural selection or whatever you want to call it, it is wrong.

 

All of this stuff listed above is mute. Because a male and a female can have oral sex and so can two men or two women. That doesn't matter.

 

I'm pointing out the base facts, we are a male and a female species. not a male and male or a female and female.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to be gay and go marching down the street in hot pink knee high boots while blowing a potted plant and jacking off to salmon spawning, I'm saying that Nature had determind that we are a duel sex race not a singleton sex race.

 

Put yerself in other people's shoes. And as for the natural stuff, well, you may be right. I dont pretend to know. I just know I want to live in a country where people are treated fairly and equally under the law. We all should want that.

 

1415423[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think that as close as I'll ever get to you admitting I was right about something.....i'll take it.

Edited April 11, 2006 by cliaz

[SuperBalla]

I farted...

[yo mama]

everyone is missing the point.  Maybe I need to type slower....

 

1415547[/snapback]

 

 

 

[wiegie]

I take it you are also opposed to oral sex, because that can not result in child bearing.  You must also be opposed to hitting the brown eye and the existence of hot kitty on kitty sex.  These things must just be wrong, because the natural order of sex is to produce children.

1415432[/snapback]

 

 

 

You think Cliaz is the Dalai Lama???

 

"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong."

 

At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.

 

"A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it," the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. "But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

[rbmcdonald]

1. If nature intended for homosexuality to be the normal then we would be Asexual.

1415341[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

First just because something is not the norm, does not make it "wrong". Did nature intend for the human "norm" to be Cliaz? No, does that make Cliaz wrong? Well I am not going to takle that question.

 

quote=cliaz,4/11/06 2:59pm]

We require a male to insert his (p)enis into a woman vagin(a) and to ejaculate sperm in which the egg is fertized.

1415341[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Second, Exactly! So a male not inserting his (p)enis into anything, is just a "wrong" as a male inserting his (p)enis into the wrong thing! Both result in no babys, and if 100% of the male humans pursue either course, that is the end of the human race.

[Azazello1313]

the other two holes? what a prude. he's not counting ears, nostrils, belly-button, eye sockets.

[cliaz]

First just because something is not the norm, does not make it "wrong". Did nature intend for the human "norm" to be Cliaz? No, does that make Cliaz wrong? Well I am not going to takle that question.

 

quote=cliaz,4/11/06 2:59pm]

We require a male to insert his (p)enis into a woman vagin(a) and to ejaculate sperm in which the egg is fertized.

1415341[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Second, Exactly! So a male not inserting his (p)enis into anything, is just a "wrong" as a male inserting his (p)enis into the wrong thing! Both result in no babys, and if 100% of the male humans pursue either course, that is the end of the human race.

 

1415566[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I've tried to be nice.....

 

All you are doing is trying to make points off of oral sex and anal sex…again.

 

Listen numb nutz if you think that it’s normal for male on male or female on female interaction, then all power to you but you are a total drool cup if you are going to still sit here and try to say I am wrong about stating that Nature has engineered us mammals for duel sexes and that I am wrong in saying that it is against the basic laws of nature that two mammals of the same sex try to reproduce.

 

It’s like trying to make a point against a retarded brick wall. I'm done with you, go back to the college football forums.

Edited April 11, 2006 by cliaz

[tonorator]

Listen numb nutz if you think that it’s normal for male on male or female on female interaction, then all power to you but you are a total drool cup if you are going to still sit here and try to say I am wrong about stating that Nature has engineered us mammals for duel sexes and that I am wrong in saying that it is against the basic laws of nature that two creates of the same sex try to reproduce.  

 

1415577[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

cliaz, haven't you been reading this thread? natural laws are subject to our interpretation and societal norms ... get with it man.

 

edited to add: should i offend or oppress ...

Edited April 11, 2006 by tonorator

[cliaz]

cliaz, haven't you been reading this thread?  natural laws are subject to our interpretation and societal norms ... get with it man.

 

edited to add:    should i offend or oppress ...

 

1415602[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Not in this case, what other way can you interpret mammals needing a male and a female to reproduce???????????????

 

and it's always better to oppress than to offended. trust me.

[spain]

No offense Cliaz. I like you and all dude, but you are light years beyond wrong. Nutttier than a Christmas fruitcake you are bro. Lets face it, Christianity ruled western civilization for a couple millenia. But people now realize how utterly ridiculous these atiquated religions like Islam and Christianity are with their dark ages dogma. Their draconian world view is sickening and has caused more death and destruction than anything else this planet has ever known. Hopefully, the world will be completely rid of their utter stupidity by the end of this millium.

 

Homo's dont choose their orientation anymore than heteros. As for me, I dig chicks, always have. I knew it early when I saw my aunts 44 DD's getting out the shower when I was about 6 years old. That shi@te was for me! I loved women since day 1. Nothing could ever change that. And I certianly could not "choose" to like men. Heterosexuality is natural to me. Just like homosexuality is natural for other people. Nobody can choose to be one or the other, you just are. Its not changeable.

 

So, what is the basis you bible thumping morans have to discriminate against people simply because you dont like who think are Oprahing? The bible? Give me a break. Queers should be allowed to marry, and divorce, just like any other consenting adults. Period. There is no justification, NONE WHATSOEVER, to treat them differently ie worse, than everyone else. Your arguements are absurd and bordering on mid evil ignorance.

[tonorator]

No offense Cliaz.  I like you and all dude, but you are light years beyond wrong.  Nutttier than a Christmas fruitcake you are bro. Lets face it, Christianity ruled western civilization for a couple millenia.  But people now realize how utterly ridiculous these atiquated religions like Islam and Christianity are with their dark ages dogma.  Their draconian world view is sickening and has caused more death and destruction than anything else this planet has ever known.  Hopefully, the world will be completely rid of their utter stupidity by the end of this millium. 

 

Homo's dont choose their orientation anymore than heteros.  As for me, I dig chicks, always have.  I knew it early when I saw my aunts 44 DD's getting out the shower when I was about 6 years old.   That shi@te was for me!  I loved women since day 1.  Nothing could ever change that.  And I certianly could not "choose" to like men.  Heterosexuality is natural to me.  Just like homosexuality is natural for other people.  Nobody can choose to be one or the other, you just are.  Its not changeable.

 

So, what is the basis you bible thumping morans have to discriminate against people simply because you dont like who think are Oprahing?  The bible?  Give me a break.  Queers should be allowed to marry, and divorce, just like any other consenting adults.  Period.  There is no justification, NONE WHATSOEVER, to treat them differently ie worse, than everyone else.  Your arguements are absurd and bordering on mid evil ignorance.

 

1415621[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i don't think what cliaz is saying has anything to do with religion.

[HUGH Man]

I know I don't want my kids turning out gay...

[spain]

i don't think what cliaz is saying has anything to do with religion.

 

1415631[/snapback]

 

 

 

Oh, I think that bible has alot to do with where he got his ignorant ass arguements...

[Squeegiebo]

as with any legal judgement there is a fair amount of interpretation of the implications, no?

 

in this case, clearly the judges were looking to support the traditional family and the well being of children.  they endorsed this goal with the notion that marriage is indeed the right of all people.  i would assume if you polled all the justices, they would then go on to share that the marriage they are supporting as a right is indeed between a man and a woman for the purposes of child rearing.  it is right there in the text of the judgement.

 

based on this, i don't then extend this judgement to the issue at hand.  if anything, it support my argument that marriage primarily exists to support traditional families in raising children.

 

the leap that we must take to then apply marriage to other consenting relationships is not just a small step that we need to tack on.  it does open up major questions as to what marriage should constitute and how it should be defined.  i submit that if homosexual marriage is permitted and put on par with traditional marriage, then you have indeed opened the door to other configurations of marriage as well.

 

since a child can only have one mother and one father and most agree that it is ideal for all of them to be together and supported, i don't see the reason to redefine marriage to account for other relationship variations.

 

1415329[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Dude - you don't understand the point here. Marriage is a fundamental right. That means that states cannot interfere with that right unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Your Biblical arguments do not qualify under the law as compelling.

 

There's also something called equal protection guaranteed in the Consitution. That means that even of marriage was not a right, if the state chose to offer it to its citizens, it has to offer it to them all equally without discriminating against unpopular minority groups.

 

Furthermore, your only argument against gay marriage, or homosexuality in general, is that you believe your religion prohibits it, and we also have something in the Consitution that separates church and state.

 

You want to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the country by making your religion into a law that discriminates against minority by denying them a fundamental right. This is so contrary to so many of the basic premises of our government that are necessary to a free and fair society that I really do have to ask: why do you hate America?