Have you recently suffered a head injury?Originally Posted by dillo
I guess the AstroTurf firm pays you by post eh?
See, dillo, here's the dillio. You asked a question. RPG&R answered it at least twice. And then you asked pretty much the same thing again. And then when he posted something smart allecky that was I guess his way of mocking your repeated asking of an already answered question, you, instead of realizing your mistake acted like he was avoiding the question that he had already answered at least twice.
That verse is a warning against hypocrisy. It is not a blanket "you can't judge people" or invitation for eye for an eye style retribution.
Agreed! Scroll back and read Mello's first post that I responded to, it will put that quote in context. He was calling Davis a hypocrite.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
So, one part of the bible demands death and a different part of the bible says that it's totally cool. This is just another reason not to follow the teachings of the bible. Anyone can find a 180-degree position on an issue. Bigots used the bible to justify their bigotry when it came to integrating schools in the south & interracial marriage decades ago. This is just the new PC-version of bigotry disguised as "Religious Freedom".
Gays & lesbians pay their taxes and can enlist & die protecting our freedoms and yet until recently were not equal under the law. I don't think it was right. I don't think it was fair. Especially forcing one group's religious beliefs on everyone else, regardless of their beliefs.
I'm an Atheist but I don't force my non-beliefs on people. It should be a two-way street. I'm also a straight guy & I don't care who consenting adults want to fall in love with & marry. I am a big believer in fair play though.
Last edited by mello; 09-08-2015 at 11:55 AM.
Take your own advice then, and don't use the Bible to make your argument. You started off claiming she would be stoned to death for 4 marriages according to the Bible.
However, I agree with you that using the Bible to make an argument is a double-edged sword because it naturally contradicts itself due to the fact that it combines many authors over a 1500 year span. Not to mention, people interpret it in ways that fit their agendas. But I don't think dismissing its teachings out of hand is wise. There are many timeless messages, lessons, and advice that are beneficial to us if we wish to live in love.
I agree that people should love whomever they desire to love, and be left alone, and treated equally under the law. By the same token, I believe people have the right to protest laws they don't agree with, which is what she did. She engaged in civil disobedience and she is protected under the first amendment to do so, despite the fact that there are those here who believe she gave up her rights when she became a public servant - ridiculous.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
If I hear Rand actively support her decision to refuse to issue marriage licenses, it will be the last straw, and I will officially decide to not vote for Rand.
If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.
I guess you would be better of supporting an authoritarian like Chris Christie who believes in using force against people and throwing them in prison for following their religious beliefs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...government-jo/
I agree 100% with what Christie said should be done in that article. It's complicated by the fact that she's an elected official, but if she was just a government employee she should 100% be removed from her position. Just like she would be in the private sector.
If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.
Since most KY people and the local government support her, it's not clear she would be removed. Whether or not she should be removed from her position should be the call of the LOCAL people who elected her, or local government who hired her, or private firm that hired her. It's not the call of a federal judge to discipline rural clerks. While her duties as a public official are clearly a big consideration, that does not prove her exercise of her religious beliefs MUST be set aside.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Im no biblical scholar, but the passage seems like its pointing out that all people are flawed. So if youre perfect and without sin than you can judge people.
A society that places equality before freedom with get neither; A society that places freedom before equality will yield high degrees of both
Make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead the 1st
No, it's saying that if you commit a particular sin, then don't judge someone else who also commits that sin. If you go out and get drunk on the weekends, then don't judge someone and think negatively of someone who goes out and gets drunk on the weekends. If you don't go out and get drunk on the weekends, then you have the right to judge someone who does that.
Why?
Why should she be removed from her position, and why do you think she would be in the private sector?
The reason Rand didn't support her first is simple; he's afraid to. He wants to be all things to all people across demographics, and in the process he's alienating his support base. It's a sad state of affairs.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
She would be fired because she's not doing her job.
If you worked as a fry cook in McDonalds, but you refused to cook hamburgers because you were Hindi, don't you think you would get fired?
If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.
Says who? Since when does her job description include issuing same-sex marriage licenses?
" You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
how do you interpret that part then?
A society that places equality before freedom with get neither; A society that places freedom before equality will yield high degrees of both
Make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead the 1st
Doesn't that support exactly what he said?
I don't know or care what the discussion in this thread has been up to now. But following this lady's release from prison today on Twitter makes me really happy Rand is not following Huckabee. Huckabee walked her out of prison to a crowd of anti-gay protesters. Not Christians defending their beliefs, anti-gay protesters. Huckabee's rhetoric today makes it sound like gay marriage is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
That is dangerous, that is uncomfortable to hear. I want no part of it.
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
Rand could have had his own voice and addressed issues that really are clear and present dangers to all of us
Are logs and specks supposed to be represent the same sin?
A society that places equality before freedom with get neither; A society that places freedom before equality will yield high degrees of both
Make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead the 1st
He can do that without diving into this media circus.
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
That verse has to do with repentance. Before chastising others you need to acknowledge your own faults and work to redeem yourself first. It in no way means you should not judge others for their actions or that you should not try to help them seek forgiveness.
Not on youtube yet, but you can watch this video of Rand Paul on Fox News from earlier today. Says he needed to stay in DC, didn't want to miss a vote. Mentions the Kentucky(?) "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 2013. (3:52)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/447133284...#sp=show-clips
(Rand looks all sunburned, and his hair looks fried, too.)
Last edited by Valli6; 09-08-2015 at 04:31 PM.
They could be, just that the one is bigger than the other.
The publicity would be the main point of doing it.
He didn't support her first probably because he isn't a huge fan of what she is doing.
I would bet there are just as many people in his base who do not support Kim Davis. I sure don't support her. There is really nothing he could do to lose my support but it does bother me that he showed any sympathy toward this idiot. I do not stand with her in any way shape or form and I would bet that is the overwhelming majority opinion among libertarians. Maybe libertarians aren't Rand's base. I don't know who he is trying to appeal to. But I can't fathom for the life of me any libertarian supporting this woman. She is wrong.
Last edited by Krugminator2; 09-08-2015 at 05:14 PM.
Of course Rand agrees with her.
The people you call libertarians aren't libertarians.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us