Peaceful Debate

Now I'm not here to flame as you all are probably going to try and say. I am solely here to bring up what I believe you have gross misconceptions about and offer you a chance to correct yourselves.

And to help you out as to who I am I'll give you a little background about myself. I am a born and raised Catholic(though I do not agree with many of the church's positions). I'm 18, just graduated high school, member of our NHS and Spanish Honors Society at my high school, and will be attending NC State in the fall for a degree in Aerospace Engineering. As for racial background, I am 1/4 Mexican, 1/8 German, and a very small fraction of Irish(though my last name is in fact Irish)

This is how I intend this to work:
-I am going to bring up a problem I have with what you all seem to believe is true.
-I will then allow a rebuttal on that issue.
-Then, I will provide my last word on the subject(unless it feels necessary to continue) and will provide a new problem.
This will continue until I run out of material to use. I am getting the material mostly from Jeb Thurmond's post "READ THIS BEFORE YOU FLAME US!"( http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4365 )
If I use a different source for my material I will provide a link to the thread as well as who posted the objectionable material.

Now for my first argument:
You all claim that had John Kerry won the Presidential Election in 2004 he would have banned the bible. You also used an image showing a leaflet mailed out by the Republican Party themselves "warning" the people of Arkansas that this may happen(image link: http://www.theocracywatch.org/arkansas_flyer.jpg ) and then proceeded to say

This would have also resulted in swarthy, brown men holding hands, which is too hideous to even think about

Here is my argument:
You all obviously do not grasp how the United States Government works. Lets say Kerry had won and he actually did have this view and wished to make the bible ban occur. He himself could not have made a bill with this purpose himself. He would have had to contact one of his allies in either the Senate or House of Representatives and had them draft a bill of such a sort. The bill would then have to pass through a committee and probably end up with many adjustments. The bill would then have to pass BOTH houses of the Legislative Branch. This would never happen. The chances of a bill like this receiving 218 "yea" votes from the House and 51 "yea" votes from the Senate are non-existent. None of the Republican minority would have voted for the bill and then even the Democrats would not allow such a bill to pass, unless they did not want to win re-election. But let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that the bill had passed and John Kerry had signed off on it. The law(as it becomes after the President's signature) is then subject to the Supreme Court. The Court would almost assuredly have a case on this. Only five of the nine Justices would need to disagree with this(as they undoubtedly would) for the law to be revoked. If the law was revoked, the bill could then return to the Legislative Branch, in which a 2/3 vote from BOTH houses would be necessary to over-turn the decision.
The second part of this argument is the blatant bigotry in your "brown men" statement. I challenge you to look at that picture one more time. Then tell me that you think both are of the Latino race(as I am assuming you mean by "brown men"). I will give you the one sitting down in that picture(he does look rather dark), but the one kneeling is undoubtedly white. Now I'm not saying that they have to look the part to be it(I am an example of this, I do not look Mexican, but I still am), but the chances of this statement being true are almost non-existent.

Now that I am done my argument I will allow you all to provide a rebuttal, and then I will continue with a new argument.

Leave a comment: