Oh God etc

[sophocles07]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ML7pML05c

This is the kind of thing that gives Christians a bad name. (And one of the reasons I have a problem with religion in general...it eventually leads to this kind of stuff.)

Anyway: what is your opinion on 1) their right to say what they want, and 2) how others, in their freedom of speech, to combat them?

[kimo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ML7pML05c

This is the kind of thing that gives Christians a bad name. (And one of the reasons I have a problem with religion in general...it eventually leads to this kind of stuff.)

Anyway: what is your opinion on 1) their right to say what they want, and 2) how others, in their freedom of speech, to combat them?

Well, your link don`t work longer..but i know what you mean. I watched it today.
No opinion about this yet..

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ML7pML05c

This is the kind of thing that gives Christians a bad name. (And one of the reasons I have a problem with religion in general...it eventually leads to this kind of stuff.)

Anyway: what is your opinion on 1) their right to say what they want, and 2) how others, in their freedom of speech, to combat them?

1- Voltaire: "I may not believe in what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

2- ditto

I didn't watch the whole thing. How do you know those wackos are Christian? They certainly did not sound like Christians.

You could just have easily said, This is the kind of thing that gives white people a bad name.

Broad brushes suck for painting real life...

[amy31416]

The Westboro Baptist Church is, I think, a spoof. I believe they are actually virulent anti-Christians who are only doing this to try to make a mockery of Christianity and to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.

I don't know what their motivations are, but they sure aren't Christians, and I think all the Christians here would agree with me, despite me being an agnostic. I heard (yes, this is unconfirmed) that they are actually far left-wing people and this is the insane method they chose to reinforce political correctness and hatred toward religious people.

I'd personally view whatever they say like a vicious version of South Park. It's hostile satire, in my opinion.

[sophocles07]

The Westboro Baptist Church is, I think, a spoof. I believe they are actually virulent anti-Christians who are only doing this to try to make a mockery of Christianity and to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.

I don't know what their motivations are, but they sure aren't Christians, and I think all the Christians here would agree with me, despite me being an agnostic. I heard (yes, this is unconfirmed) that they are actually far left-wing people and this is the insane method they chose to reinforce political correctness and hatred toward religious people.

I'd personally view whatever they say like a vicious version of South Park. It's hostile satire, in my opinion.

Do you have any proof of this?

Your explanation actually seems more probable than this group actually exists; they're ridiculous.

[amy31416]

Do you have any proof of this?

Your explanation actually seems more probable than this group actually exists; they're ridiculous.

I'll see what I can dig up, I read up on them quite a while ago. They actually exist, but I think it's BS--though they certainly seem pretty disgusting on video. Just so outrageous that I find it hard to believe they are real--it might be my own bias at play.

But, I will see what I can find. I know I've read some things about them being satirical before.

[sophocles07]

it might be my own bias at play

That's what we call "natural human instinct."

[pinkmandy]

One of the learning channels had a documentary of them not too long ago. A journalist lived w/them for awhile- I'd be very surprised if they are a "liberal" group. They seemed to truly believe they are the only righteous people left in the world. It was so sad- they were out protesting on a corner and a car drove by throwing a cup on a KID that was out there with them. I can only imagine how hard it must be to be a child in their midst! And the stuff they have brainwashed those kids into saying/believing is just hateful. It may have been TLC or Biography.

ETA that I'm referring to Westboro...

[Sandra]

If you mean Landover Baptist Church, Yes it is a spoof site!!!!! I've ordered so many tacky things from that site it's ridiculous. It's not an anti Christian site, it just makes fun of the lengths people go with Christianity.

[Sandra]

Westboro is that crazy church that pickets soldiers funerals with the pastor that looks like the one on Poltergeist 2.

[yongrel]

The Westboro Baptist Church is, I think, a spoof. I believe they are actually virulent anti-Christians who are only doing this to try to make a mockery of Christianity and to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.

I don't know what their motivations are, but they sure aren't Christians, and I think all the Christians here would agree with me, despite me being an agnostic. I heard (yes, this is unconfirmed) that they are actually far left-wing people and this is the insane method they chose to reinforce political correctness and hatred toward religious people.

I'd personally view whatever they say like a vicious version of South Park. It's hostile satire, in my opinion.

I dunno about that. I think Fred Phelps is just another charismatic cult leader, who happens also to be the single most hateful man to ever live.

Louis Theroux did an excellent documentary on them a few years back called "The Most Hated Family in America." Very well done, and very frightening.

Batshit crazy comes in many forms.

[adara7537]

Westboro Baptist Church is not a spoof. They travel all over the country-you can view their schedule on their website. They also have spin off groups that believe what they do. I've unfortunately been privy to the hate they spew at a restaurant here in Atlanta.

They disgust me. I suppose they have a right to say what they want, but they often times border harassment and have been sued for various things like spitting on people. I think they just got fined quite a bit of money not to long ago.

[amy31416]

Like I said, it is possibly my own bias in not believing these people are possibly for real. I probably latched onto something that made some semblance of sense to me. I hunted around on the 'net and didn't find anything to support them being hatefully satirical. Unfortunately.

I guess it's quite possible they are for real. A satirical group wouldn't have protested at a soldier's funeral and disturbed the family. I still just can't quite accept that they are real. So fucking disturbing. I just can't understand it.

[Theocrat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ML7pML05c

This is the kind of thing that gives Christians a bad name. (And one of the reasons I have a problem with religion in general...it eventually leads to this kind of stuff.)

Anyway: what is your opinion on 1) their right to say what they want, and 2) how others, in their freedom of speech, to combat them?

1) Although it's true that God hates homosexuality and has destroyed nations who have gladly embraced it, I think these protesters need more wisdom in how they present this message to the masses. Being indignant and disrespectful are not ways to convince people about your point of view. As professing Christians, they should know that the fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Galatians 5:22, 23). They definitely aren't illustrating they have God's Spirit present with them when they behave and speak as they do.

Constitutionally speaking, I would say they have a right to express themselves in this way with the protection of the government, just as any Christian who chooses to preach on a street corner, nonetheless.

2) I believe freedom of speech works both ways in the context of the Constitution. Not only does the speaker(s) have a right to express his (their) views freely without government coercion, but the listener/audience also have a right to disagree, debate, or inquire of the speaker on their views. If the listener/audience then decide they will "speak" with weapons because they don't like the message presented, then I believe the government should be involved to protect the speaker's freedom of life/liberty, which is granted to him by God.

[acptulsa]

Like I said, it is possibly my own bias in not believing these people are possibly for real. I probably latched onto something that made some semblance of sense to me. I hunted around on the 'net and didn't find anything to support them being hatefully satirical. Unfortunately.

I guess it's quite possible they are for real. A satirical group wouldn't have protested at a soldier's funeral and disturbed the family. I still just can't quite accept that they are real. So fucking disturbing. I just can't understand it.

Hang around down here in their end of the world for a while and you'll believe it. You still won't understand it, but you'll learn to believe it. How anyone can perpetuate intolerance in Jesus' name is way beyond me...

[Kade]

The Westboro Baptist Church is, I think, a spoof. I believe they are actually virulent anti-Christians who are only doing this to try to make a mockery of Christianity and to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.

I don't know what their motivations are, but they sure aren't Christians, and I think all the Christians here would agree with me, despite me being an agnostic. I heard (yes, this is unconfirmed) that they are actually far left-wing people and this is the insane method they chose to reinforce political correctness and hatred toward religious people.

I'd personally view whatever they say like a vicious version of South Park. It's hostile satire, in my opinion.

No, they are Christians.

I also don't see the "biblical" argument against what they are doing.

[Kraig]

No, they are Christians.

I also don't see the "biblical" argument against what they are doing.

Well there are probably at least dozens of them.

[acptulsa]

Well there are probably at least dozens of them.

And they aren't even all in the New Testament. Yongrel is right, this group is a cult. The interesting thing is how many of them are relatives of the "pastor". Interviews with them are annoying; they're incredibly oblivious.

[ronpaulhawaii]

They seem like con-artists to me:



All the principals of the Phelps Chartered law firm,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#cite_note-14) a firm founded by WBC founder Fred Phelps, are members of WBC. Phelps Chartered handles most of WBC's legal work and has received significant awards of attorney's fees from the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Attorney%27s_Fees_Award_Act_of_1976) when WBC had been improperly prevented from picketing.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#cite_note-fees_paid_to_Phelps_Chartered-15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church


ISTM, they are being as obnoxious as possible in order to exploit the 1st Ammendment for monetary gain. Follow the $$$...

...and not christian behavior at all.

[amy31416]

No, they are Christians.

I also don't see the "biblical" argument against what they are doing.

Yeah, I was wrong. Wish I weren't.

I'm not religious, but I can think of a few biblical arguments off the top of my head:

1. Love thy neighbors
2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
3. I think there's something about forgiveness of sins in that book too.

But I'm no expert.

[Kade]

Yeah, I was wrong. Wish I weren't.

I'm not religious, but I can think of a few biblical arguments off the top of my head:

1. Love thy neighbors
2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
3. I think there's something about forgiveness of sins in that book too.

But I'm no expert.

I don't want to get into this, but I utterly disbelieve that the entire Religious Right wing of the Republican party believes in any of those principals....

Matt. 5 17-18
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

[Kade]

The game of religion is played like this:

1. Society slowly moves towards tolerance. Zeitgeist. (Civil rights, Suffrage, sexuality and sexual preference, plurality, other religions etc)
2. Fiercely fight the new move, until the mobocracy that is religion finally accepts it.
3. Twist words of the authority document around the new form of tolerance to show that the specific religion has always been favorable to the new movement. (see slavery, creationism, polygamy, rape, stoning, unbelievers, witch burning, homosexuals, etc).
4. Revise history.
5. Go back to 1.

Throughout history, the liberal theologians, philosophers, and great secular thinkers have slowly dragged society, kicking and screaming, towards the freedom of mind, freedom of body, and freedom from authoritarian control of all kinds. Welcome to the real revolution, all those that realize this simple yet elonquent truth.

From the poisoning death of Socrates, the burning and rape of Hypatia, the torture and death of Giordano Bruno.... we have always been here, moving along towards freedom.

[acptulsa]

They seem like con-artists to me:

ISTM, they are being as obnoxious as possible in order to exploit the 1st Ammendment for monetary gain. Follow the $$$...

...and not christian behavior at all.

I'd been wondering for a while how on earth they supported themselves and their shenanigans. Interesting.

Well, this thread sure turned into a strong libertarian argument, didn't it? Look what overly rambunctious and overly intrusive lawmaking has created this time. I'd rather have Frankenstein's Monster to deal with.

[mtmedlin]

They dont represent most christians I know. I have been studying under a jewish professor who actually says that the bible was misinterpreted when it comes to the ancient text. He claims that the word used does not mean Homosexual but was more common for "temple prostitute". The early christians did not want to be associated with temple prostitutes mainly because it was common in certain cults. It very well may be true that god doesnt hate homosexual behavior...dunno. Guess I will have to hold out judgement, which is what many Christians should do.

[familydog]

They dont represent most christians I know. I have been studying under a jewish professor who actually says that the bible was misinterpreted when it comes to the ancient text. He claims that the word used does not mean Homosexual but was more common for "temple prostitute". The early christians did not want to be associated with temple prostitutes mainly because it was common in certain cults. It very well may be true that god doesnt hate homosexual behavior...dunno. Guess I will have to hold out judgement, which is what many Christians should do.

Never heard that one before. But it could be possible. "Adam" (as in Adam and Eve) comes from the Hebrew word Adtham meaning "mankind." So one could make an argument that there was literally no Adam and Eve as we think of males and females, but Adam and Eve symbolize "humankind." The only reason "Adam" was looked at as a male is because the time the Bible was written and today are very patriarchal societies. Which also explains why people think of "God" as a male because He is represented as "He" and not "She" or any word that could be used to describe both males and females.

[AutoDas]

It doesn't matter if the texts have been misinterpreted (LOL, by your own people!) if they aren't even true. It's just a fairytail story and you've made a religion out of it.

[amy31416]

It doesn't matter if the texts have been misinterpreted (LOL, by your own people!) if they aren't even true. It's just a fairytail story and you've made a religion out of it.

Quit trying to stir up trouble and have some respect. The only point you've made is making yourself look like a close-minded jerk.

We're all in this together and I don't care if someone is a Christian, a Muslim, a Truther or whatever, an enlightened human being doesn't waltz in and start insulting people's beliefs and treat them like they are imbeciles for having them.

[mtmedlin]

Quit trying to stir up trouble and have some respect. The only point you've made is making yourself look like a close-minded jerk.

We're all in this together and I don't care if someone is a Christian, a Muslim, a Truther or whatever, an enlightened human being doesn't waltz in and start insulting people's beliefs and treat them like they are imbeciles for having them.

qft

[Ozwest]

One of the guiding principles of the Constitution is the "Separation between Church and State."

It is a pity that America doesn't adhere to these principles.

I am apart of the rest of the World that does.

Hypocricy...

[Kade]

One of the guiding principles of the Constitution is the "Separation between Church and State."

It is a pity that America doesn't adhere to these principles.

I am apart of the rest of the World that does.

Hypocricy...

It is an vastly important principle. However, some want to find a way out of it... to "clarify" it so it doesn't apply to them or their religion or church. It protects them equally, but I respectfully and vehemently disagree with them. Separation of church and state protects people like me from monetarily supporting any place of worship, as it also protects the churches from government influence that usually comes with government money.

Also, it's spelled hypocrisy.

[torchbearer]

1) Although it's true that God hates homosexuality


I find it hard to believe the "New Testament" God of Jesus "hates" any of our brothers and sisters. Sinner or not, he would not throw a stone.
If God truly HATED *****, He could deal with them himself, he doesn't need a bunch of bigots to go out of their way to hurt their fellow brother or sister.

Of course, some people's god does endorse killing brown people for oil and putting pot smokers in jail and removing from society anyone they disagree with... but thats a different God than the one I read about in the new testament.
Sound more like the one of the old testament, but the early hebrews didn't have a concept of heaven and hell, so rewards and punishments were given during this life...

[torchbearer]

One of the guiding principles of the Constitution is the "Separation between Church and State."

It is a pity that America doesn't adhere to these principles.

I am apart of the rest of the World that does.

Hypocricy...

Well, the constitution states that the federal government shall MAKE NO LAW regarding the establishment of a state religion.
If the fed tells a local courthouse they can't have the ten commandments, that is in itself unconstitutional because the fed can MAKE NO LAW regarding religion.
So its a two way street.
I see athiest using government force to push religion into people's private homes.
But that is an unconstitutional use of the fed government.

I'm not advocating holy rolling congress. I'm just stating, people don't truly understand the nature of beast.

The constitution doesn't state "seperation of church and state".
It state that the government shall make NO laws regarding religion.

[Theocrat]

I find it hard to believe the "New Testament" God of Jesus "hates" any of our brothers and sisters. Sinner or not, he would not throw a stone.
If God truly HATED *****, He could deal with them himself, he doesn't need a bunch of bigots to go out of their way to hurt their fellow brother or sister.

If you're going to quote me, then please make sure you interpret what I say correctly. Notice that I said God hates homosexuality, not homosexuals. The God of the New Testament is the same God of the Old Testament. He has not changed in His moral standards of how men and women should live, even in terms of their sexual relations with each other. For instance, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ still affirms what was written in the Old Testament that only men and women should be joined together in their flesh when He declares, "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?'" (Matthew 19:4, 5 [emphasis mine])

Additionally, we find in the New Testament that Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ explains further how homosexuality is sinful in God's sight when he states:


Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened... Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves...for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:21, 24, 26, 27 [emphasis mine])

My point is simply to prove that God does indeed hate homosexuality, as He's revealed in both the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture. This is not my own opinion, and that's why I mentioned it as a matter of fact, drawing from the teachings of God's revelation. You may not agree with that, but I just wanted to give you my frame of reference and assumption.

I would agree with you, though, that those protesters do come off as being bigoted in presenting their hatred for homosexuality. It's often not what you say but how you say something that determines how well others will receive your message. I believe these protesters are acting more out of emotion than just simply giving a respectful and reasonable case for why they believe homosexuality is wrong and why God hates it. Their major problem, as I see it, is that they lack the fruit of the Spirit and Scriptural wisdom in their presentation of the truth, but not necessarily the content thereof.

[Kade]

Well, the constitution states that the federal government shall MAKE NO LAW regarding the establishment of a state religion.
If the fed tells a local courthouse they can't have the ten commandments, that is in itself unconstitutional because the fed can MAKE NO LAW regarding religion.
So its a two way street.
I see athiest using government force to push religion into people's private homes.
But that is an unconstitutional use of the fed government.

I'm not advocating holy rolling congress. I'm just stating, people don't truly understand the nature of beast.

The constitution doesn't state "seperation of church and state".
It state that the government shall make NO laws regarding religion.

This is a bastion of irrelevant ignorance that needs rectifying. You can't even spell "atheist" or "separation" correctly. The constitution does not declare a separation of church and state, but both Madison and Jefferson have made it clear that it was indeed the intent. Because intent matters, the Supreme Court has found over and over again, that a "wall of separation" exist between the workings of all governments, federal and state, and the interests of any religion.

Let me make this clear to you.

If a judge makes it clear that he obeys the Ten Commandments, than I have already broken the law in his/her eyes. As an atheist, like any citizen, I am bound by the United States laws, not biblical law. I do not believe in any gods, a display of the ten commandments on state property, including a courthouse, is declaring to me that I have already broken the law with my conscious.

The Ten Commandments are NOT the law of the land. There is no compelling reason for them to place on any civil court in any government in this Country. The Constitution guarantees a freedom of religion, and in displaying the Commandments, a judge is making a clear statement of the "type" of law I should be following. By the standards of biblical law, I have committed a crime already, before any jury. If a judge proclaims with a display that he obeys biblical law, then I should have a retrial or mistrial if I'm ever found guilty of any crime in that court.


So far it is not illegal to not be a Christian or not to acknowledge god.
It is not illegal to not labour for six days.
It is not illegal to blaspheme.
Adultery is not illegal in most states.
It is not illegal to work on the sabbath.
It is not illegal to dishonor your mother or father.
It is not illegal to lie in most cases.
It is not illegal to covet anything.


What compelling reason is there for a judge, a JUDGE, to display them. Of course it should be illegal. He is a civil servant, in the employ of the people. His position demands neutrality on issues of conscience and issues not related to the criminal code. His court is not a pulpit, it is not his personal sandbox to test his stubborn ignorance of plurality and demonstrate how truly incompetent he/she is....

For every incident that you could in any case of the separation of church and state, it comes down to tax payer money and it comes down to government's intentional neutrality toward religion.

If you want to break down the wall, why not allow the plethora of interesting and fun things found in both books of that precious garbage text?

This conversation stinks. It continues to stink.

[allyinoh]

If you don't like these type of topics, why do you continously put your two cents in? If you don't like it, stay out of the flippin thread.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I see athiest using government force to push religion into people's private homes.
But that is an unconstitutional use of the fed government.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_1020.article.jpg

[Kade]

If you don't like these type of topics, why do you continously put your two cents in? If you don't like it, stay out of the flippin thread.

I'm guessing you are talking to to me.

I made the reason very clear in the very first sentence.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

If you don't like these type of topics, why do you continously put your two cents in? If you don't like it, stay out of the flippin thread.

If you don't like the government, why do you continuously put your two cents in? If you don't like it, stay out of the flipping thread.

[allyinoh]

I'm guessing you are talking to to me.

I made the reason very clear in the very first sentence.

Yes, I was talking to you.

I don't care what you're excuse is. If you don't like religion related threads, stay out of them. I always see threads where I'm not interested in the topic and you will never see me go into those threads and make comments on the topic.

What's the point? To read your own typing? To get your post count up?

[torchbearer]

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_1020.article.jpg

So you don't believe the parent has the right to determine what their child learns regardless of how silly it seems to the rest of us?

I am in no way a bible thumper, i find myself in the middle of two sides of hatred.
I speak to both sides of their inaccuracies, and i get hounded by both sides.
I really don't care what religion people practice, and what they want their children to believe.
It's none of my business, and its none of the government's business either.

I don't care if a judge wants the 10 commandments and a statue of mickey mouse in his courthouse. And the federal government has no authority to tell him what to put in his courtroom. Whether you like it or not, you should tolerate it.

Tolerance.

And yeh, when you notice someone knocking on a person's typos, its usually because they don't have anything factual to add to the conversation.
I'm usually busy while i'm on the forum, so i don't take the time to proofread what my fingers are typing...

[Kade]

Yes, I was talking to you.

I don't care what you're excuse is. If you don't like religion related threads, stay out of them. I always see threads where I'm not interested in the topic and you will never see me go into those threads and make comments on the topic.

What's the point? To read your own typing? To get your post count up?

If you don't care what my reason is, why are you asking? I made the reason clear, and you clarified that you don't care. Then you go on to ask again, and then go on to place your own ideas on why?

You're an autistic anus.

[allyinoh]

If you don't care what my reason is, why are you asking? I made the reason clear, and you clarified that you don't care. Then you go on to ask again, and then go on to place your own ideas on why?

You're an autistic anus.

An autistic anus? Wow, that's mature.

I never asked you why you post in these topics, I said that if you don't like stupid topics like Christianity, why waste your time posting in threads when you don't like the topic. It just seems like a waste of time, like what I am doing by replying to you.

You are a bigot and a jerk.

[Dr.3D]

You're an autistic anus.

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg202/DrThreeDee/Archie-1.jpg

Oh my Archie, did you hear what he just called that person?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

So you don't believe the parent has the right to determine what their child learns regardless of how silly it seems to the rest of us?

Here you are already using unfair terminology because something you consider a "right" is actually a "privilege". It is as if I said "So you don't believe I have a right to free health care?" The answer for me is no. You do not own your child, you are its legal guardian, and if you are not taking good care of the child (yes, the state will decide that, OMG!) you should lose your privilege in favor of someone more competent. This is already how the government works, by the way, and is how it works in nearly every liberal democracy. I can feel your response already, that this leads itself to nazism and communism: well fresh water and trade unions also lead themselves to nazism and communism, so there.


I am in no way a bible thumper, i find myself in the middle of two sides of hatred.
I speak to both sides of their inaccuracies, and i get hounded by both sides.
I really don't care what religion people practice, and what they want their children to believe.
It's none of my business, and its none of the government's business either.

The system only works for you because your belief system coincides with the majority's belief system (that's Christianity, if you haven't noticed). If you were living in a Muslim state, I think you'd be a fine advocate of a secular state.

I deeply care what children believe. I don't want them to "believe" anything, when believe means accept without reasoning or evidence, whether it's teaching them in a Christian country to hate homosexuals, or in a Muslim country to kill themselves for Allah. It's all utterly ridiculous and should be outlawed. What the parent does in shoving their religion down their child's throat is nothing less than an act of aggression, and it should be responded to as the state responds to any violent criminal.


I don't care if a judge wants the 10 commandments and a statue of mickey mouse in his courthouse. And the federal government has no authority to tell him what to put in his courtroom. Whether you like it or not, you should tolerate it.

Tolerance.

That's like tolerating a swastika on the courts. You may have a case for private property, but courts are public property, and taxpayers should not be funding any religion.


And yeh, when you notice someone knocking on a person's typos, its usually because they don't have anything factual to add to the conversation.

No, it isn't. The poster that commented on your misspelling of "atheist" had many valuable things to add to the conversation.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I never asked you why you post in these topics, I said that if you don't like stupid topics like Christianity, why waste your time posting in threads when you don't like the topic. It just seems like a waste of time, like what I am doing by replying to you.

Why shouldn't you speak out against this injustice against gays? If we applied this model to all the biblical injustices of the past against blacks and women, society would not have progressed.

[constituent]

Here you are already using unfair terminology because something you consider a "right" is actually a "privilege". It is as if I said "So you don't believe I have a right to free health care?" The answer for me is no. You do not own your child, you are its legal guardian, and if you are not taking good care of the child (yes, the state will decide that, OMG!) you should lose your privilege in favor of someone more competent. This is already how the government works, by the way, and is how it works in nearly every liberal democracy. I can feel your response already, that this leads itself to nazism and communism: well fresh water and trade unions also lead themselves to nazism and communism, so there.



a parent is their child's "legal guardian" only(?) in your liberal democracy?



(yes, the state will decide that, OMG!)

is the way you capitalize OMG meant to express a mocking tone?

btw
tonight i'll thank heaven for my constitutional republic...

an advance is human society and social governance.

increasingly precious and rare.

[torchbearer]

Here you are already using unfair terminology because something you consider a "right" is actually a "privilege". It is as if I said "So you don't believe I have a right to free health care?" The answer for me is no. You do not own your child, you are its legal guardian, and if you are not taking good care of the child (yes, the state will decide that, OMG!) you should lose your privilege in favor of someone more competent. This is already how the government works, by the way, and is how it works in nearly every liberal democracy. I can feel your response already, that this leads itself to nazism and communism: well fresh water and trade unions also lead themselves to nazism and communism, so there.

It is about Rights and Responsibility.
You can't have one without the other. A child
is incapable of understanding or paying for the responsibilities that come with the rights.
A child cannot enter into contract. Why? Because they can't be held responsibly for what they do.
A child cannot get married without adult consent.
And many other things....

It is a parents right to govern their child because the parent holds the RESPONSIBILITY for that child, and with that responsibility comes the right.

You sir, need an education.

[allyinoh]

Why shouldn't you speak out against this injustice against gays? If we applied this model to all the biblical injustices of the past against blacks and women, society would not have progressed.

Oh my God... Are you serious? Anti-gay is not just a Christian thing. And the injusticies against blacks and women are not jsut a church thing. Give me a flippin break.

[torchbearer]

[QUOTE=Minestra di pomodoro;1378353]
The system only works for you because your belief system coincides with the majority's belief system (that's Christianity, if you haven't noticed). If you were living in a Muslim state, I think you'd be a fine advocate of a secular state. {/QUOTE]

I am advocating a secular state.
I am also advocating for the constitution and what authority the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has been given.

[torchbearer]

That's like tolerating a swastika on the courts. You may have a case for private property, but courts are public property, and taxpayers should not be funding any religion.

I wouldn't care if there was a swastika in the courthouse, at least it would be honest.
And the courthouse is built by local funds, and here, our district judges are elected. So- the people, if they don't like what the judge is doing with the courthouse can vote him out of office.
That is the check and balance, but the Fed Gov doesn't have the authority to dictate what Alabama can have in its courtrooms.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Oh my God... Are you serious? Anti-gay is not just a Christian thing.

You're right, it's a Muslim thing, and sometimes a Jew thing. But all these hateful religions share the same roots. You can't justify hatred without religion.


And the injusticies against blacks and women are not jsut a church thing. Give me a flippin break.

Yes, they are. The bible was used to justify slavery, to demean blacks, and to repress women. The confederacy was mostly bible thumpers.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

a parent is their child's "legal guardian" only(?) in your liberal democracy?

Absolutely, this gives the child maximum freedom from the tyranny of an abusive parent.


It is about Rights and Responsibility.
You can't have one without the other.

Actually, you can. Let's see where this goes.


A child
is incapable of understanding or paying for the responsibilities that come with the rights.

A child is perfectly capable of understanding or paying for responsibilities. Of course, you can try to redefine "child" just as you have redefined "marriage" and redefined "human being", but you're just being dishonest with yourself.


A child cannot enter into contract. Why? Because they can't be held responsibly for what they do.
A child cannot get married without adult consent.
And many other things....

And marijuana is criminalized. They are unjust laws, based on "faith" or gut feeling, rather than scientific study or reason.


It is a parents right to govern their child because the parent holds the RESPONSIBILITY for that child, and with that responsibility comes the right.

You sir, need an education.

That doesn't even make sense. You say first that children cannot understand rights and responsibilities, and because of that parents have the right to do whatever they want with their child? This is nonsense, religious reasoning. Retarded people can't understand rights or responsibilities, should we do what we please with them also?

[allyinoh]

You're right, it's a Muslim thing, and sometimes a Jew thing. But all these hateful religions share the same roots. You can't justify hatred without religion.



Yes, they are. The bible was used to justify slavery, to demean blacks, and to repress women. The confederacy was mostly bible thumpers.

Can you provide me with the Bible verses, I would love to look up the ones about making blacks slaves and oppressing women.

[torchbearer]

A child is perfectly capable of understanding or paying for responsibilities.

You are talking to a SOCIOLOGIST, not a CHRISTIAN.
And children don't even develop abstract thinking until later.... and yes, it is a definable term.
Should i recommend some light reading on socialization?

I know what i'm talking about, this isn't an opinion. It is a recitation of years of SCIENTIFIC work.

You are blinded by your biases and I find your assumptions of my biases ridiculus.
I am the first to throw down on a religious zealot doing the same thing you are doing... making ridiculous statements that are driven by your own "religion", and yes secular humanism is a religion.
I am also a member of the association for Humanist Sociologist.
Perhaps you need to know more about who I am and what I've studied and my credentials on this topic?

[torchbearer]

Can you provide me with the Bible verses, I would love to look up the ones about making blacks slaves and oppressing women.

1 Timothy 2:9-15 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

[constituent]

Absolutely, this gives the child maximum freedom from the tyranny of an abusive parent.





you're assuming guilt.

furthermore, show me where the constitution says it is the government's role to give children "maximum freedom from the tyranny of an abusive parent," and where
it justifies classifying all parents (guilty of abuse or otherwise) as only "legal guardians" for the sake of asserting that control to maximize "freedom."

[constituent]

That doesn't even make sense. You say first that children cannot understand rights and responsibilities, and because of that parents have the right to do whatever they want with their child? This is nonsense

yes, this is non-sense.

torchbearer did not suggest that parents could do "whatever they want with their child"

[constituent]

Yes, they are. The bible was used to justify slavery, to demean blacks, and to repress women. The confederacy was mostly bible thumpers.

and back then... so was the north (awful jackass).

for an interesting take on the confederacy see lysander spooner

[torchbearer]

And you want some hard core bible verses... try Isaiah 13: 15-22
Its about babylon. Shock and awe?

13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword.

13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and [as for] gold, they shall not delight in it.

13:18 [Their] bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.

13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in [their] pleasant palaces: and her time [is] near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

[torchbearer]

//