Good nite all. Enjoyed the discussion.
I am a semi-liberal Democrat still..aren't I?
Good nite all. Enjoyed the discussion.
I am a semi-liberal Democrat still..aren't I?
“Before I leave I’d like to see our politics begin to return to the purposes and practices that distinguish our history from the history of other nations,
“I would like to see us recover our sense that we are more alike than different. We are citizens of a republic made of shared ideals forged in a new world to replace the tribal enmities that tormented the old one. Even in times of political turmoil such as these, we share that awesome heritage and the responsibility to embrace it.”
-Patriot and Senator. John McCain
Further food for thought:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...81.html?page=1
"It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation."
The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.Originally Posted by elicat
That assessment is 100% correct and right on point. And what I have been saying all along about this and all of the other ancillary activities associated with these people involved. A lot of different activities are all in play here, and I'm sure if you look at the players some of the same names will keep popping up.
Gay marriage, gun control, Roe v Wade, public education reform, voting issues, immigration reform, and several other issues are all intricately tied together by these liberal socialists/Communists vermin. All you have to do is pay attention and connect the dots to bring the pieces of the puzzle together.
It's a very ugly picture that is forming before our eyes. And I know some of you guys think I'm full of baloney, but the end result may not be to most of our likings. Something very bad is coming, and it's coming for us that don't want it.
MOLON LABE!
The Progressives' and the Communists' (CPUSA) platforms are nearly identical twins. The same goals, very slight differences in wording.
Those that are unknowingly pushing the agenda won't want it when it arrives.
Link to the CPUSA propaganda pamphlet aimed at seducing Americans into their way of thinking:
http://www.cpusa.org/assets/pdfs/pam...ismbooklet.pdf
Every single item on it is a part of the Progressive movement.
I, too seldom come to this board. I’ve read some of your comments. Both those for and against state interesting comments. We’ve had a state that voted on an issue by legal election and it was overturned by the court. What happened to “Of the people, for the people and by the people”? I thought a democracy works like that. You have an issue; put it on the ballot and vote on it. The loser lives with the outcome. You know, like the presidential election.
This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Now comes the rest of the story. It is unlawful to refuse a gay Boy Scout master to be with a group of kids. I’ve seen some troops disbanded because it was their only choice if they disagreed with the law. I have no desire to watch two men with beards kissing in public. I don’t want a law telling it is unlawful to refuse service to a gay couple or anyone for that matter. As stated in another post, about Sodom and Gomorrah, the way the gays demanded the man to have his guest come out for the reason to have sex with them. Where was the guest's rights?
This is offensive to me. Where are my rights? The idea of equal rights should be for everyone. Not just for the 2%. It’s offensive to me to make governments take down the Ten Commandments, abuse our flag, to be ridiculed for being a Christian, and have different views than someone else.
The Supreme Judge, GOD, will have the last word. His word will be final. Whether you agree or disagree makes no difference to me.
The power of the supreme court to overturn unjust laws is enumerated in the constitution by the founders. It was specifically enumerated to overturn issues of "tyranny of the majority". This is a reason for the checks and balances, like it or not, but it is very useful. And as the majority becomes less and less religious, this very right might become more and more important to evangelicals as well.
Nice how you imply that all gay men are pedophiles. If a gay man is a scout master, I see zero reason to give a damn. Who cares what he does in his home time. I can't count a single time when I was in scouts that the scout masters homelife/wife was even discussed. ZERO! There was no reason for it to. The discussion was on camping, knot tying, etc. As scuh, the only reason you could be saying this is if you think he would molest the kids.
If two men are kissing, who gives a damn if you want to see it or not. It's none of your business. Should someone stop being happy because it gets on your nerves? If you don't like seeing two man in love and happy, turn away. There is absolutely ZERO reason that you should be able to determine what two people do together, unless they are trying to do it to you.
If God were to list the reasons that S&G were destroyed, where do you think their sexual behavior would fall on the list. The way you talk, it would be number one with a bullet but that turns out to not be the case."'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." With the second part, starting with "They were haughty" being a separate verse even. So basically, it's the LAST thing on the list of reasons that S&G was destroyed.
You have your rights, no one is taking your rights away. You are demanding special rights to determine which rights your can strip from others or infringe on others based on your religious beliefs. Sorry, but I have no desire to live in an Afganistan/ISIS like theocracy, nor did the founding fathers. One where raped women are imprisoned or stoned (in the bible). One where not obeying the sabath is a capitol offense (in the bible). One where we follow the biblical law on everything. We are not, nor ever were intended to be a theocracy. So stop trying to make America one. No one is stripping you of your heterosexuality, not one is forcing you to get married to another man, the government is not stopping you from saying what you want. You might have to live with the repercussions (from others that dislike what you say) just as anyone else, but the government is not muzzling you.
You ask about where are your rights, as part of the majority. One of the prime considerations of the founding fathers was specifically to inhibit the majority from riding roughshod over minorities they disliked.
As James Madison states in the Federalist papers #10:
In the sake of brevity, I jump to this statement from later on in FP10:
At this point, he is saying not only is Tyranny of the majority a possibility but that it is in fact the most likely and natural outcome. The consitution was written with these facts in mind. Tyranny of anything was something that the founding fathers were quite afraid of, and for good reason.
Absolutely! IMO, the Founding Fathers would find the current uproar by the thought police over a Civil War battle flag to be far more upsetting than the governments attempts to be the marriage police.
I guess all is fine for anyone who believes in ethical relativism.
Imo, secular humanists use such things to propagate their faith, outside of the label of religion.
It's a religion none the less. Albeit a false one...and one predicted for the end time many centuries ago.
There is no common ground for discussion between the two views. And there lies the problem.
P.S.
The known universe is not all there is, and the longer I live the more evident that has become to me. And mark these words, one day soon the sky will open as a scroll and The God of Heaven and earth will be seen by all. Then each of us will fall to our knees, both the believer and non believer and this earth will conform to His desire.
And then each of us will have to stand behind what we have truly believed in. And there will be no argument afforded other than Christ crucified.
That is folly to some I'm sure, but it will happen regardless.
"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
..George Washington
Last edited by kingcat; 07-02-2015 at 06:10 PM.
“Before I leave I’d like to see our politics begin to return to the purposes and practices that distinguish our history from the history of other nations,
“I would like to see us recover our sense that we are more alike than different. We are citizens of a republic made of shared ideals forged in a new world to replace the tribal enmities that tormented the old one. Even in times of political turmoil such as these, we share that awesome heritage and the responsibility to embrace it.”
-Patriot and Senator. John McCain
Pedro,
While you know I agree with you deeply on your view of the Founders and the importance to prevent tyranny in its many forms, I will add that the worrisome part of the gay marriage situation isn't the issuing of a marriage license, it's the protected status thinking that is inextricably tied to it, and in its own way is a tyranny of the majority just with a different minority being repressed.
The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. clearly a punitive judgement b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class", you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone. OK, that's fine, she was FINE to bake a cake for a gay person, the original complainant was a regular customer who is gay, she just objected on basis of her faith for participating in any way in something she sees as a sin.
The gay marriage thing doesn't worry me, but the fact that churches all over the country are rewriting their rules to have to find ways to prevent what they see as a sin before their God occurring in their own church is very disturbing.
The courts need to protect from that tyranny as well. Want to get married? have a ball. Want to not be part of it b/c you think being part of it is committing a sin? That should be OK too.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
So what do folks think of this very obvious next step?
(FWIW, I'll break my arm patting myself on the back but I pointed out a couple of years ago on this topic that it was coming after gay marriage)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02...cmp=latestnews
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Large groups of polygamists in MT. One area is one of the worst % for immunizations in the country. Deeply held religious beliefs and a strong anti-science component.
should it be as legal as any two person relationship?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
This is obviously the next logical step, and per the SCOTUS ruling must be allowed.
This quote is false, it is modified version of a quote from his Farewell Address. It is never been shown that he said "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible", this comes from a Biography written in 1852 about him and is never seen in any other publication. The real quote does support the concept of religion being necessary but it never says WHICH religion. There is no mention of God or a creator, simply a generic religion and morality.
@ CBBN - I think any law attempting to force a religious person from performing a marriage would be shielded by separation of church and state. The churches rewriting their bylaws are doing so in a knee-jerk fashion. As for the woman baking the cake. To play devils advocate: it is a cake, they didn't ask her to attend the wedding, officiate the wedding or play an integral role in the wedding. They asked her to provide a tasty symbolic treat fro them to use at their wedding. The difference being an active or passive/indirect role in the wedding. Truth be told, it is something I am REALLY up in the air on. I can see both sides arguments and believe that both sides have very strong merit. Until I think about it more or I read a discussion that really gets into it more, I will continue to remain up in the air on it.
As for polygamy, if they are consenting non-coerced adults then why stand in their way. I do think that it can cause a huge amount of legal issues because our current basis of marriage is based around a binary relationship. It creates many of the same problems as getting the government out of marriage all together. For example, next of kin in a hospital. If there are two spouses, who gets to be the next of kin to make decision. If both are the next of kin, as their status would be based on current law, what do you do when they want to different things. Say a spouse is in the hospital with no likely chance of recovery, what do you do if one spouse want to pull the plug and the other holds out hope they will recover and is vitally against this. Who do you listen to? It's a very difficult matter and legally something will HAVE to be worked out if polygamy is going to become legal because the legal system is woefully unprepared for it at this time. The question then becomes, is the legal system being woefully unprepared a basis for denying people the right to polygamy or do you allow it and let the cards fall where they may dragging the legal system kicking and screaming forward?
We know Washington was a Freemason and believed in God. He was the soldier. Jefferson and Madison were the philosophers of the new nation, and they were clearly for separation of church and state.
I'd not rely on Barton for my Founding Father quotes. I have a signed copy of his first book, and a large number of the quotes he uses in that book are unsubstantiated or false.
I think being forced to bake a wedding cake for a wedding you have religious objections to is as wrong as asking that baker to show up and perform the ceremony. However, Non religious accommodation would be required.
Oregon and its $135,000 fine is outrageous, disproportionate, cruel and unusual.
Knew I could count on you.
The problem is that many if not most who are for gay marriage immediately forget the "let people do what they want" part when that question comes up, and dismiss the religious views of others.
No one should be able to stop someone from pursuing their happiness with something like being married to who they want, but neither should anyone be forced to embrace it and perform services for it against their faith.
I know it's a fuzzy area b/c refusing to serve someone b/c yo don't want to versus b/c of your faith is a gray area, but the alternative of fining some poor nice woman $135,000 because she wont' participate in what she thinks is a sin is too abhorrent to not try.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
I stand partially corrected I guess.
Yet, we have a pretty good idea it was our God, the One of the Christian faith.
Make no mistake though, I am a supporter of the separation of church and state. But the moral conscience of this country has been guided by Christian values since the beginning, mostly in agreement with other versions of the same, as well as other religions.
Yet even as a distinct minority the Secular humanist religion tries to operate as the only truth and therefore not a religion.
And we must be aware that it covertly targets the separation of church and state as a loophole to subvert, divide, and eventually extinguish Christianity from the American way of life..
I'll try again..
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
..George Washington
Last edited by kingcat; 07-03-2015 at 04:18 PM.
“Before I leave I’d like to see our politics begin to return to the purposes and practices that distinguish our history from the history of other nations,
“I would like to see us recover our sense that we are more alike than different. We are citizens of a republic made of shared ideals forged in a new world to replace the tribal enmities that tormented the old one. Even in times of political turmoil such as these, we share that awesome heritage and the responsibility to embrace it.”
-Patriot and Senator. John McCain
One other thing I'd like to make clear. I understand that certain rights should be afforded everyone no matter their sexual orientation. My argument is against any law that clearly exists in opposition to Christian values and God's will in general.
And I do not consider a gay or lesbian individual any less a fellow citizen because of my stance.
Should the law have been related to adultery, covetousness, or bearing false witness, my answer would be the same. And while everyone is repeatedly in violation of one or the other of those, a national law should not be written regarding them either way.
To Christian gays or lesbians I say this (really to us all) we should not flaunt our forgiveness for sin by ignoring or perverting God's law in any way.
Last edited by kingcat; 07-03-2015 at 05:28 PM.
“Before I leave I’d like to see our politics begin to return to the purposes and practices that distinguish our history from the history of other nations,
“I would like to see us recover our sense that we are more alike than different. We are citizens of a republic made of shared ideals forged in a new world to replace the tribal enmities that tormented the old one. Even in times of political turmoil such as these, we share that awesome heritage and the responsibility to embrace it.”
-Patriot and Senator. John McCain
Thomas
Last edited by elicat; 07-04-2015 at 08:42 AM.
Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist, which is of course not a form of Christianity. (In fact, Jefferson was arguably anti-Christian.) George Washington, however, was an Episcopalian, which meant pretty much then what it means now. It is, whatever else you say about it, a form of Christianity. So when Washington talks about God, we can suppose he means the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of Jesus Christ, rather than the Great Architect and Designer of the Universe that Jefferson would have meant. How devout Washington was remains in dispute, but that when he said God he meant the Christian God really is not.
Did he do Washington's wooden teeth?
Oh, a deist? Nevermind.
Back on topic--Catholic priest here in Birmingham, Monsignor Mulling, had an interesting piece he authored for his church bulletin at Our Lady of Sorrows. The Birmingham News (al.com, at least) picked it up, and thought some might want to read it.
http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2...iolates_r.html
IMO this is where things will take the wrong turn:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...-lesbians.html
Hit with a huge fine for not performing a personal service they see as a sin to perform, then hit with a gag order so they can't exercise their 1st amendment rights either. The Attorney General in Oregon is a strong advocate for the LGBT cause, so strong he's willing to use the power of the state to force people to conform to his value system.
It's not going to be two people getting a marriage license that becomes the issue. it's going to be what that license then empowers them to demand of others. Do churches have to allow gay weddings? Do photographers have to come and participate in what they see as a sin in their faith? Those are the tougher questions.
Protected status was easier to accept when it was saying you can't refuse to serve someone in a restaurant due to their race, there was no religious objection there in any major American faith saying having black or latino people in your diner is a sin. There isn't really one to serving a gay couple per se either, but many do see one if they are required to serve the wedding of that gay couple. In their faith that's an accessory to a sin.
Do we tell them tough, it's no different than refusing to serve a black person in your restaurant? Do we force them to take wedding photos or face huge fines? Do we force the churches to allow the weddings? The problem is there is another whole Amendment out there saying that people have the right to pursue their faith as they see fit, not as the state or others see fit, and they have some scripture there that can be interpreted to say they are violating their faith to so participate.
Also dying to watch the bigamy case make its way through, boy will that be fun. No way to turn them down now.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 07-06-2015 at 01:52 PM.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
I have a question in this discussion, and here it is: my Dad was a firefighter, and owned a bar & a grocery store. In his bar, posted on the front door, over the bar in plain view, and over the door leading out to the restrooms, was a sign that said "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone". I only saw my Dad use that sign to refuse service to anyone maybe a couple of times. The bar was a privately owned business, just as the bakery in Oregon is. As a private business owner, I would believe that both my Dad and the bakery owners have a right to refuse to serve anyone as long as there is a good reason. In my mind, the bakery owner has a valid reason as to why they do not want this person's patronage. It the bakery owner's business, how they make a living, and as such, it is their right as private businesspeople to vendor to whomever they damn well please. Can't get the cake you want there? Guess what..........there's another bakery down the street or the next block over.
This is where this situation is all wrong: the customer in question is wrong for taking this to the point it has gone to. And it is none of the damn government's business as to whom the bakery chooses to serve or not serve. The state of Oregon is wrong for being involved and levying any kind of penalty against the bakery. Somebody's rights and civil liberties are being trampled on here, and it is NOT the people wanting the cake, it is the vendor selling the cake. This is government overreach at its worst, and a clear violation of the rights of the business owner to deal with whomever they want to deal with for patrons.
So now, it's okay to destroy another person's livelihood because they can't get want they want from this particular vendor, and especially since there are other vendors available that will meet their needs? That, my friends, is a classic example of tyranny. That is exactly what it is.
That's just how I see this. A "protected group" using the government to impose its will on those who don't wish to deal with them as a product vendor.
I guess Spock had it wrong in the "Wrath of Khan" movie...........""the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"..........and I know that's not what he said, just further illustration of the absurdity of this entire situation.
MOLON LABE!
Thanks for posting that Darrell. The Monsignor makes interesting and very valid, I believe points.
MOLON LABE!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks