Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
Nice try, but I'm comparing the principals you're advocating for how we treat the faithful. The act itself is unimportant in the equation, I'm just comparing whether or not we can criticize the acts and actors if they're acting on their faith. You said we couldn't, but you obviously don't believe that when it comes to Islam....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
"1. The Bible clearly states that Homosexuality is wrong and a sin. This is found in both the new and old testaments Romans 1:26 and following is an example.
2. When a Christian speaks against a sin they should be relying on what God's word teaches on that sin. That people are committing the sin is wrong.
3. When you criticize the person for speaking out against sin you are criticizing not just the person but the teachings of the faith and in the end God Himself."
I sure hope you hold yourself to the same standard. For instance:
1. The Koran clearly states that Muslims could righteously launch offensive and graphic violent acts against infidels, people who do not believe in Islam.
2. When a Muslim speaks or acts against disbelief they should be ryling on what God's/Allah's word teaches on that disbelief. That people that don't follow Islam should die.
3. When you criticize the person who flies planes into buildings and commits suicide bombings you are criticizing not just the person bu the teachings of the faith and in the end God himself.
So, if we follow your guidelines, thou shalt not criticize Al Queada for their actions. Or are you suggesting that the respect for people's faith only apply to YOUR faith and no one else's? Because THAT would be a fun position to watch you try to defend....
Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
""Believing" something as a hedge bet against punishment in the afterlife is the ultimate in hypocrisy. It's not actually believing at all, it's trying to game the system."
That's actually Pascal's wager, a philosophy that's been thoroughly thrashed ever since he uttered such a simpering attempt at theological conversion....
Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
"By commenting on his belief of what God teaches you are attacking him for his faith and what God has taught. The Bible, which is Gods Word teaches that homosexuality is a sin."
I see. I just want to make sure I have this correct, so tell me if I've gotten it wrong. You're saying that critiquing how a person applies their religion to the public via actions or speech is the same thing as critiquing the religion itself. In other words, me saying that this guy's words make him a bigoted assbag is blaspheming his faith, which you said must be respected and isn't on the table for discussion. Do I have that correct?
This is the funniest post OOTB has ever made. The entire point of the court's ruling that, despite not doing so in THIS PARTICULAR case, the court could hold texters texting drivers liable under certain conditions went whooshing so far above OOTB's head that he couldn't crane his neck upward to see it fly past.
Way to go, moron. The reason few people bother responding to your idiocy is the idiocy itself serves the purpose of proving you idiotic. Bravo, dumbass....
I wonder if you might point to where in the article I condemned this man for his Christian faith? I only condemned him for using the image and saying shitty things publicly about homosexuals. That isn't his faith, it's his shitty, bigoted words.
For the record, unlike some of the commenters, who have their own way of thinking, I don't "hate" or "condemn" everyone for their faith, just the crappy application of that faith when it applies....
You seem to think that legal punishments are only intended to rehabilitate and never to punish, which is an extremely stupid thing to think. Sometimes we punish in an attempt to do both, but the punishment comes first and rehabilitation comes second...
Guys, simply put, a 14 year old girl cannot be as much in control of a sexual situation as an adult teacher. This whole conversation is silly. The prosecution NEVER should have offered that deal and the judge should never have gone for it either. Their comments are simply icing on a really shitty cake....
Please don't. That theater example is based on a supreme court opinion that was an absolute travesty and should never be uttered by anyone again, nor would it if people knew the context of the Justice's bullshit statement in his opinion...
Think about what you just said: the BSoA have every right to be exclusionary AND should still be given free use of government land and buildings? What the fuck is that matter with you?
"What you're saying is that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay their salaries, because some people find it offensive and/or take exception to their tax dollars being appropriated to such use."
Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. The constitution is quite clear that the government and religion should have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The public paying the salaries of clergy violates that. Teaching about the existence and tolerating homosexuality in a secular classroom violates zero constitutional amendments. They aren't even close to the same thing.
"What's more, the government is attempting to force them to sanction gay marriages, with the full knowledge that it violates their beliefs. This is a recurring theme: attempting to manipulate religious persons into violating their beliefs."
Excuse me, but if a clergymen wants public dollars he plays by the public's rules. Otherwise, he/she can get the fuck out of the military entirely, or else volunteer their service, which is what they'd be doing if they were pious to begin with. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they play by secular rules, simple as fucking that.
The proper question is: should an organization getting public money be disallowed from discriminating which members of that same public get to join their club. The answer, OF COURSE, is yes....
"Tell me Mike, how is it the LGBT community's business what the Boy Scouts do?"
Well, gee, since they get all kind of government benefits in the form of buildings and land for their own use at almost no cost, it's ALL of our business. They poisoned their own religious well when they got public benefits, now they have to play by the public's rules, and that includes not discriminating. If the Mormon Church (you know, the guys that actually head up the BSoA and made all the religious changes that didn't use to be in their guidebooks) wanted to retain their religious rights they should have kept their grubby paws off of my tax money and our government land.
"You always talk about how legacy corps and government are intruding upon private businesses, and I agree wholeheartedly (who wouldn't?). Yet as soon as it's something involving homosexuals, they're automatically right and everyone else is wrong? I think not."
Actually, what we have with the BSoA is a religious group intruding upon the public's government and dressing up what is now a religious organization with the old garb from when it wasn't, while using government land for $1, when it would cost anyone else a hell of a lot more than that.
What the fuck are you talking about? All I said is tax money shouldn't fund religion, which is exactly what paying military chaplins, rabbis, and all the rest is. Even someone who's religious should understand that, if they understand what secularism is....
On the post: Megachurch's Anti-Vaccine Stance Results In God's Measles-y Wrath
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
On the post: Megachurch's Anti-Vaccine Stance Results In God's Measles-y Wrath
Re: Re: Re:
Is this what passes as an insult to you? You're using "gay" as an insult? How come?
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
2. When a Christian speaks against a sin they should be relying on what God's word teaches on that sin. That people are committing the sin is wrong.
3. When you criticize the person for speaking out against sin you are criticizing not just the person but the teachings of the faith and in the end God Himself."
I sure hope you hold yourself to the same standard. For instance:
1. The Koran clearly states that Muslims could righteously launch offensive and graphic violent acts against infidels, people who do not believe in Islam.
2. When a Muslim speaks or acts against disbelief they should be ryling on what God's/Allah's word teaches on that disbelief. That people that don't follow Islam should die.
3. When you criticize the person who flies planes into buildings and commits suicide bombings you are criticizing not just the person bu the teachings of the faith and in the end God himself.
So, if we follow your guidelines, thou shalt not criticize Al Queada for their actions. Or are you suggesting that the respect for people's faith only apply to YOUR faith and no one else's? Because THAT would be a fun position to watch you try to defend....
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
That's actually Pascal's wager, a philosophy that's been thoroughly thrashed ever since he uttered such a simpering attempt at theological conversion....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
I see. I just want to make sure I have this correct, so tell me if I've gotten it wrong. You're saying that critiquing how a person applies their religion to the public via actions or speech is the same thing as critiquing the religion itself. In other words, me saying that this guy's words make him a bigoted assbag is blaspheming his faith, which you said must be respected and isn't on the table for discussion. Do I have that correct?
On the post: Court Says You Can Be Liable For Merely Sending A Text Message To Someone Who's Driving
Re: Do you even know what "liable" means, Timmy?
Way to go, moron. The reason few people bother responding to your idiocy is the idiocy itself serves the purpose of proving you idiotic. Bravo, dumbass....
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
For the record, unlike some of the commenters, who have their own way of thinking, I don't "hate" or "condemn" everyone for their faith, just the crappy application of that faith when it applies....
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Mighty arrogant from someone who mis-spells "principles":
On the post: Latest Snowden Leaks Detail The 'Black Budget' And How Much The Gov't Wastes On Useless Surveillance
JFK
In other words, exactly what Kennedy was fighting against during his brief time in office. My, how nothing's changed....
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I bet you do. Regularly. By order of the state....
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Yup....
Only because CNBC panelists are so easily confused, hence panelists....
On the post: Embrace The Hate: One ICE Employee's Quest For A Race War
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
On the post: More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. The constitution is quite clear that the government and religion should have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The public paying the salaries of clergy violates that. Teaching about the existence and tolerating homosexuality in a secular classroom violates zero constitutional amendments. They aren't even close to the same thing.
"What's more, the government is attempting to force them to sanction gay marriages, with the full knowledge that it violates their beliefs. This is a recurring theme: attempting to manipulate religious persons into violating their beliefs."
Excuse me, but if a clergymen wants public dollars he plays by the public's rules. Otherwise, he/she can get the fuck out of the military entirely, or else volunteer their service, which is what they'd be doing if they were pious to begin with. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they play by secular rules, simple as fucking that.
On the post: More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
On the post: More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Well, gee, since they get all kind of government benefits in the form of buildings and land for their own use at almost no cost, it's ALL of our business. They poisoned their own religious well when they got public benefits, now they have to play by the public's rules, and that includes not discriminating. If the Mormon Church (you know, the guys that actually head up the BSoA and made all the religious changes that didn't use to be in their guidebooks) wanted to retain their religious rights they should have kept their grubby paws off of my tax money and our government land.
"You always talk about how legacy corps and government are intruding upon private businesses, and I agree wholeheartedly (who wouldn't?). Yet as soon as it's something involving homosexuals, they're automatically right and everyone else is wrong? I think not."
Actually, what we have with the BSoA is a religious group intruding upon the public's government and dressing up what is now a religious organization with the old garb from when it wasn't, while using government land for $1, when it would cost anyone else a hell of a lot more than that.
The BSoA of bullshitters of the Mormon variety...
On the post: More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>