|
|
|
|
|
| | The Constitution and religious freedom Page 5 of 18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) | Ok old one,
I have thought about it from both sides. I just don't understand why the hate gays so much. Gays don't do anything to hurt them, yet they can't stand gays and go to the extreme of preaching their hatred to massive amounts of people. So I guess I more stand up for the little guy when I see a bully picking on them. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 2:31:06 PM |
They should have lost their nonprofit status for meddling in a political affair.
Really? Since when, in this country, do people not have a right to express their religious views in their votes? Anyone who hated John Kennedy for being a Catholic was certainly free to vote for Richard Nixon in 1960. We don't require people to explain their motives before they go into the polling booth.
I recall attending a Christmas service a few years ago at an Episcopal church. The preacher (a lying dunce I wish I could have debated) went on and on about the evil deeds of America--especially the war in Iraq--and how Jesus would have condemned it. I suppose any church that wanted to use its pulpit to denounce George Bush was exempt from the Establishment Clause.
Our president's own preacher, the esteemed Jeremiah Wright, never seemed to be at a loss for words when it came to condemning this country or apologizing for its enemies. And his church made sure literature praising the virulent anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan was always available. The two even went to Libya together to show support for their pal (and well-known friend of America) Muammar Khaddafi. During their twenty years of attendance, of course, the ever-patriotic Obamas never heard or saw a word of this. If they had, who can doubt that they would have stood up indignantly, walked out, and never gone back?
You claim that religious people view gays as "subhuman" or spread a "message of hate." Where is your evidence for that? Using words appropriate to Nazi persecutions to slander people who disapprove of homosexual marriage is a poor substitute for facts. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 2:38:25 PM | If you were to ask people what the "problem' with "gay marriage" was, you would find out that the vast majority don't care what gays do or don't do. What they care about is two things. First, that there be a level of decorum that is more than often missing from the the gays. Been to any "gay pride" rallys or marches or parades lately? Secondly, call it anything else except "marriage". Why is that second one so hard to understand? Call it a "union", call it whatever, but not MARRIAGE, because it is not marriage, as marriage is between men and women. I don't care what they do, how they do it, how often, etc., etc.,
Actually, the second point is something that the whole "gay pride" movement is missing on, in that I would think that they would want some type of name, or label, that would point out that they weren't in a heterosexual relationship. Or maybe, they really aren't so proud of being in the relationship they are in after all.
Paul K, older and wiser. If you can be a wise old latina, I can be older and wiser....... | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 2:47:24 PM | | I have no evidence Match, just my own personal observations. They call them abominations. By the way they deny only them the ability to get married which leads me to believe they find gays less than human. They don't feel gays are deserving of the same things heteros are. The church definately doesn't view gays as they do heteros. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom to be as sexual as you damn well please
Posted: 12/29/2009 2:55:14 PM | all this, over a form/bent/orientation/just-plain-feels-right/whatever of ones sexuality.
same-sex is not new, dear people, and yet the ardor (and blood) that the line has been drawn in even in this era over a matter that is NOT a choice (go ahead...I can hear it now...  ) is amazing.
yes, ban same-sex and it will "go away"  | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 3:02:30 PM | Hey Rocky
You wrote:
"So, what's the solution? There is one, I'm sure of it. Yet, if the hostility towards Christians in this nation keeps up, I myself will assume that there is a marxist dynamic at work and will consequently lean more towards acknowledging no possible remedy so as to prevent a totalitarian, fascist or socialist shift in this country--and this would be part of my civic duty to America do so too."
You are just figuring this out? Clearly, there is a marxist dynamic at work, and they have a lot of help from "useful idiots", who unknowingly are doing everything they can to subvert what we have today, and to change it into marxism. Their problem is that they don't even know that they are doing just that. All they see is their own little "cause", and if you were to tell them different, you are automatically seeing communists in every bush. YOU would be the new "McCarthy".......... Good luck with living down that brand, even though you would be right.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 3:21:43 PM | ^^^^^
Sweetie, I am agreeing with you 100%. AND, McCarthy was right, he was just very clumsy in how he handled his situation.
There is a huge crowd that doesn't even realize that what they are doing is greasing the skids for a continued shift towards marxism. The sad part is they consider themselves very patriotic and loyal Americans, and to a great extent are just that, but have no idea what their actions are resulting in. Like you, I am pointing all this out whenever necessary, and getting some strange comments for doing so, but will continue to point out the end result of the shift to the left that we are going through.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 4:43:23 PM | | I think some of you are paranoid to actually believe America could ever become a Marxist country. I think you're drinking the fearmongering kool-aid. The people would have to revolt against the government and implement socialism themselves. The government can't do it on their own. But, you folks can believe what you want. I see there are enough of you here to stoke that fire enough to make yourselves believe the government is going to take everyone's land and get away with it. A little rational thought and you can figure out we will never be a socialist country. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 4:51:59 PM |
McCarthy was right, he was just very clumsy in how he handled his situation.
I don't want to get too far off onto Joe McCarthy himself, although the people he was after were mostly opposed to the Constitution and to our freedoms, religious and otherwise. But even though McCarthy was a straight-ahead fighter, I wouldn't call him clumsy. He was determined to protect this country from traitors, but he was also a wise ex-trial judge who could be subtle if need be.
He did the best he could, and the records show he tried hard to be fair. But many powerful people, both within and outside of the U.S. government, used every lie and dirty trick they could to defame and destroy him. Why? To hide their own complicity in the national security disaster McCarthy worked so hard to expose. Given the room, I could prove that in detail, as Evans does in "Blacklisted by History."
I'll mention just one example of this propaganda campaign. A lot of people may have seen documentaries of that time. They always include footage of a 1954 hearing that's supposed to show McCarthy's Waterloo--where he went too far and showed his lack of morality. A lawyer named Joseph Welch is seen saying, in his best dramatic tones,
"Fred Fisher is a young man who . . . came with my firm . . . little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad . . . I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you . . . Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
And the answer's supposed to be obvious to us. What prompted Welch's apparently righteous indignation was McCarthy's mention of a newspaper article saying Fisher had belonged to the National Lawyers' Guild, which the Justice Department had listed as a front group for the Communist Party. But the documentaries conveniently leave out a couple little details--you can't let facts spoil a good lie.
The person who had confirmed to the newspaper that Fisher had been a member of this group was none other than Welch himself. Also, earlier in the hearing Welch had badgered Roy Cohn, McCarthy's top legal assistant, implying he was a liar and giving him a phony little sermon on how he should do his job of hunting for Communists in government. McCarthy responded that since Welch had admonished Kohn to tell him right away if they found anyone who might be working for the Communist Party, he was letting him know his own assistant had spent several years in the front group. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 5:02:39 PM | Hey schooch
You had me rolling with this one:
"I see there are enough of you here to stoke that fire enough to make yourselves believe the government is going to take everyone's land and get away with it. A little rational thought and you can figure out we will never be a socialist country.''
First of all, there is a lot more to socialism than govt. taking land, which by the way is happening in the name of things like environmentalism. I own a piece of land in the Hemet area, and want to change the zoning, and was outright told that if I bought another piece of land of equal value and dedicated to the county for environmental purposes, they would give me the zoning I asked for, which appropriate for my land in the first place. But, that is an aside.
You must really think that all people are as blind as you are when it comes to seeing just how far we have moved towards govt. control, the latest of which is the boondoggle of a "health" bill that howdy doody is just itching to sign...... Open your eyes, we are a lot further down the road than you think. And now we have a president whose mentors are Alinsky, Rev. God Damn America, and a bomber of the pentagon, and you don't see a shift????
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 5:13:28 PM | Not a Marxist country. The danger is that we'll slide into what de Tocqueville and others have called a "soft tyranny," in which many of the personal liberties we've always enjoyed will corrode away. Always, of course, we the people are to defer to our government in the name of all sorts of noble, wholesome-sounding goals. Nowhere is it any more true that "the road to He!! is paved with good intentions."
This process requires our Constitution gradually to be reinterpreted until it means very little. And that would leave us much too close to being at the mercy of the wolves for my taste. The undemocratic goals and methods are very much like those of the 20th century European fascists, but ironically the power-hungry control freaks who advocate them are usually thought of as being on the left. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 5:33:30 PM | Paul,
I understand there's more to socialism than taking the land. I threw that out there for those who think this health care bill will make us a socialist country. This country will never be a socialist country. But, I'm sure the talking heads wouldn't tell their audience that. Their roll in lying to their fans is to scare them into vote. They have all their scare tactics like socialism, FAR left wingers, and Nancy Pelosi. They're comical to me the way they are so scared and want all their fans to be scared just like them. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 5:53:32 PM |
to the end that human rights shall be more sacred than property interests
It sounds like the NLG hasn't changed much since its days as a Communist Party front group. Since when have leftists been very concerned about property rights? Someone should ask them to explain how those human rights (whatever they may be) are supposed to survive without property rights. Imagine trying to defend your right to free speech against a government that could seize your house, your land, your car, and everything else you needed to live, if you said things that displeased it.
The last I looked, the 5th and 14th Am. Due Process Clauses, the 5th Am. Taking Clause, and the 4th Am. all guarantee individual property rights against the state and federal governments. I take it the NLG members would rather ignore those parts of the Constitution. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/29/2009 6:48:47 PM | Hey Match
you wrote:
"Imagine trying to defend your right to free speech against a government that could seize your house, your land, your car, and everything else you needed to live, if you said things that displeased it"
I don't have to imagine, I am living that nightmare. I have been advised by counsel, at $400.00/hr, in Newport Beach, that if I raise to much of a stink, that they could force me to change the property over to environmental causes simply because of where it is, and nothing more. Mind you, this was land that before the zoning change, I could have put multi unit housing, or manufactured housing on......... I went to the county of riverside, and half of the people on the board looked they were leftover hippies from the sixties...... I know, I am not supposed to "profile", but they were the ones that voted in a block against me every time. Why is it that the FBI hires profilers to find criminals after the crime is comitted, but can't use profilers to prevent crime??????
Happy new year to me.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 12:41:09 AM | | To the right. YOU LOST. GET OVER IT! ! ! ! Remember those words? They were ringing in my ears for the last eight of the most politically painful years of my life. But you folks never want to talk about that, do you. Hell no. Bush could do no wrong. Of course even now that you've seen concrete results of just how wrong you (and he) were, you still won't acknowledge it. Well, denial of reality is delusion . You lost because you and your ilk would have a beer with Bush so he must be ok in my book I reckon.....*puke* and for the same reason lined up like like music groupies around that vacuous bumbling ex governor. That you could even CONSIDER that woman as a possible president, is utterly astonishing. You people are so fearful and so paranoid, you're ready to snap. I'd seriously look into that if I were you. It sound ominous. Jeeez. Commies and socialists and facists under and around every turn. You're amazing. And you profess admiration for that bizzaro cross-dresser McCarthy? Alrighty then. Everyone is entitle to their own delusions. Enjoy. Happy new year. | |
|
| |
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 1:15:00 AM |
Everyone is entitle to their own delusions
You continue to remind us of that with your every ill-informed assertion. Your laughable remarks earlier showed very clearly you know next to nothing about the Court's Establishment Clause decisions. And now you show you know just as little about Sen. McCarthy, or the other things you addressed so incoherently. Just who or what is "the right," anyway? Everyone who disagrees with you? You must imagine that the caps key, exclamation marks, wild generalizations, angry vulgarities, and a nasty, personal tone will make up for your lack of reasoned thought. They don't. | |
|
| |
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 1:53:14 AM | | I wasn't insulting cross dressers. I thought it was fairly obvious I was criticizing McCarthy. He probably has his own personal section in the DMSO. But hey, that's just me. | |
|
okRob
| | Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 120 | |
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 2:23:48 AM |
that doesn't justify accounting Christians in a totalarian manner.
I have no problem bowing out to you on this point :)
I wonder when the world will stop viewing Islam in such a way. I am not religious at all but it occurs to me that thinking all Muslims are extremists is a little bit like thinking all Christians are KKK.
Have a nice day <--- My best American accent :)
Oh... I've also now started to believe that the Earth is flat. And the center of galaxy. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 6:49:24 AM | The reason people in the West look askance at Islam as a totalitarian ideology has to do with Sharia. Theocracies are notoriously totalitarian, regardless of the faith involved.
Government based on the concepts of individual rights and equal protection are relatively new--far newer than Islam. (Do you honestly think an Imam would ever lose a hand for stealing?) To Westerners who have taken those concepts to heart, an Islamic government sounds like a step backward in time to a less functional government and a consequent loss of freedom. | |
|
| |
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 10:39:55 AM |
thinking all Muslims are extremists
Who said that? Even if only 10% of the world's Muslims are Islamists who want to force sharia on the world, that's more than a hundred million of them. And although it's not true that all Muslims are extremists, jihadists all commit violent acts in the name of Islam. If these mass murderers have given their religion a bad name, it's up to other Muslims to prove them wrong. And if many of them are trying to do that, how is it that so few people seem to hear them? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 11:01:19 AM | You know Match, I was watching Hardball and Chris Matthew's had a Muslim lady on there speaking out telling the Muslim community to step forward and get active, explaining how these jihadists kill more Muslims than anyone else. It was odd though, he was sorta laughing at her, and playing the politically correct card of guilt on how we should be more sensitive towards Muslims, you could tell in her face she was not buying this crap. She kept trying to talk over him and explain the need for Muslims to stand up against this, while he kept trying to talk over her putting the case we need to be more sensitive towards Muslims... It was quit telling.
She also talked about her interview with the driver of Ben Laden who was in Yemen who supposedly went through the rehabilitation process, but was not rehabilitated at all. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 12/30/2009 11:15:05 AM | When 9/11 happened, where were the masses of horrified Muslims marching in the streets to mourn the dead? Where were the Islamic government proclamations deploring the violence?
It could well be that many Muslims felt that it was about time we felt the same pain and loss that they feel over the death and oppression of so many Palestinians. But if that's true, then instead of making peace, they are choosing to make us their enemies. And if that is how they regard us, you can hardly blame us for realizing that and responding accordingly. It isn't necessarily prejudice to regard someone as a potential enemy whose compatriots have declared them to be so. It only becomes unfair when an individual who demonstrates good faith is nevertheless disregarded.
If we Westerners are, in fact, regarded as enemies by Muslims, then we'd better be clear about that and either do what it takes to make an honest and genuine peace, or win the war. We can't do both.
I am very clear on my preference. I am also clear that it cannot be both ways. Peace can only come when both "sides" want it more than they want to "win." As long as either side has a hope of winning that they are not willing to set aside for a higher purpose, it will be war by various means, both overt and subtle.
So, i f90% of Muslims want peace, they need to make sure their governments are aware of that fact and that those governments fuly participate in efforts to reign in terrorism. And if most Westerners want peace, they need to make sure their governments are aware that they will no longer tolerate colonialist policies and practices that continue to incite enmity among Muslims.
We Westerners don't have much control over how the Israeli/Palestinian conflict plays out, but we do have control over who receives aid and how much. If we want peace there, we will have to make further violence so costly to both sides that they both become willing to give it up. When we in the West start exerting policy initiatives that make clear our intention to promote peace over victory, our Muslim counterparts might well see that and respond in kind. Or, they might not. We have no control over that.
As it is, Muslims, my question to you is this: Are you actively or passively supporting a long-term, low-intensity war against the West? My question to my fellow Westerners is this: Are you making enemies by perpetuating Colonialism in various overt and subtle ways?
The reason I ask that is because from where I sit you both seem to be doing exactly that. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
|
|
Home
login 
