DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Religious Freedom.

PDR, they have problems. But it's far less than what i experience over here. Combine that with the fact that i have an unhappy wife who doesn't like living here anymore, and the decision was pretty simple to make.

I've been to some Euro Cup matches as well, and i've traveled all over the place.

5 year's living there, didn't get pulled over and searched for drugs. or called a nigger. nobody gave a crap. like i said, just my experience, as i am light skinned.

I would argue that it's probably all relative.

You could've wound up somewhere in America where everyone treated you fine, you could've wound up somewhere in Europe where you'd face the most vicious racism on the planet.

jc

anyways, this was hilarious:

Ann Coulter’s deranged Indiana freakout: Blasts Christians who would rather “change bedpans of Ebola patients” than stand up for anti-gay pizza parlor

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/03/ann_coul...istian_leaders/

On Thursday evening’s edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter had a conversation that was essentially one of those reverb loops that happens when you put a cellphone near a speaker or an idiot near another idiot.

“It’s Christianity that the left hates most of all because that is the foundation of our country and all of our freedoms come from that,” Coulter said. “The rest of the world is a cesspool of violence and atrocities. This is the most consequential nation on Earth and the fact that these Christians would rather get praise from the New York Times and Nicholas Kristof by changing bedpans of Ebola patients in Nigeria, rather than stand up to the New York Times and fight against abortion and fight against these bullies, and I don’t think it’s gay bullies, I think it’s as you call them, secular progressives or liberals. The media, they’re the ones who are trying to tear down this country by going directly at the heart of America which is Christianity.”

Other stories recommended for you
She continued: “The small town owners of pizzeria have more Christian courage than most Christian leaders and certainly the Republican party.”

And she is so right. As it says in the Gospel of Luke, “Thou shalt not serve pizza, the stupidest food, at a gay wedding.”

__________________

“The rest of the world is a cesspool of violence and atrocities."

cesspool of violence and atrocities

violence and atrocities

violence

^^^^^^ yea....not sure she lives in the same country we do with that statement.

good point.

That was my point. You are not attempting to meet anyone on common ground. Your attempt is to dictate your view onto others and if they do not agree, they are ignorant and bigots.



Another attack of religion. It had no purpose other than to inflame. It is not worthy of discussion.



I agree it is law and I agree it is here to stay. The point I hoped to get across is that it is only a law and cannot override the Constitution and the 1st Amendment religious liberties. As the immigration laws are laws, the Federal Civil Rights Act is a law. It is possible, that without any court ruling, a future President could just ignore aspects of the Civil Rights Act by not using Federal resources to enforce it not unlike how President Obama has ignored immigration laws today.

t

If someone refuses to perform a duty they opened a business to do because a customer is black or gay...why should I pretend like they're not a bigot?

If someone believes that a man who was birthed by a virgin walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead...why should I pretend that they're not buying into an obvious children's fairy tale like a gullible fool?

I'm not saying that what I believe is correct, and that if you don't agree, hit the hills...

..but if a grown man believes that during a month long flood someone put two of every species on a boat...c'mon. I'm supposed to pretend like that is a valid viewpoint and not laughably stupid?



Why isn't it?

If you're telling me that ancient text is so infallible and filled with truth that we should base laws and freedoms around it, how is it suddenly out of bounds or a low blow for me to ask 'Wait, what about this insane part that clearly didn't happen?'

My point had a clear purpose, and it wasn't to inflame - it was to point out that the book people tell us we should base law around contains a section where a talking snake tells a woman who was created out of thin air from a rib to do bad things.

Think about that. I'm supposed to pretend that's a valid viewpoint?

[guote]... hoover cocaine like an aardvark...[/quote]

Ha! Never heard that one.

Keep the sense of humor. You're gonna be fine.

FINANCIAL ADVISOR: Alright, PDR, I've got a great investment plan for you here. It's diversified, and it will yield great returns. And, by the way, the earth was created when Bing-Bong, the space ape, vomited some space avocado. Just sign here and we'll be on our way.

PDR: Wait, what was that part about a space ape?

FA: Nevermind that, sign here

PDR: No, but you said an ape vomited the earth?

FA: Now you're just cherrypicking. You clearly didn't understand what I just said.

PDR: No, but the ape from outer space? What did you mean-

FA: Now you're just trying to attack and inflame.

The question is whether we can progress as a society without violence.

The question is why are people religious and believe in irrational things.

The question is can we save ethics from religion and the abyss of nihilism and socialism many atheists fall into.

And the question is are we trying to improve the world or just pick fights with people on the internet?

Do we really care about the happiness of the world?

If you are just trying to point out people's irrational beliefs without being happy yourself you are doing them a great disservice. More and more people will stop being religious when the costs outweigh the benefits. If you are happier than the average Christian then indeed you have something valuable to say to them.

Thanks, man.

Working on it.

.

Laws are made by a government that apply to all.

Religion is a personal belief followed by an individual or group

When a government enacts a law that is specific to a religion, there will be a problem. Isn't this the reason behind the outcry regarding Sharia Law?

When an individual claims objection to a Law based on a religious belief, it is a false claim. Rulings such as Hobby Lobby only encourage other attempts to use religion as the basis for Law.

I will use bacon as an example. The consumption of bacon is prohibited by some religion. So shoul we prohibit the manufacture and sale of bacon because of someone else's belief.

I like bacon, and so it is best that you stay out of my business, because it is none of your business that I like bacon.

Hello?

What's that they say about those that live in glass houses?

Looking kinda silly here pdr.

We'll wait for the "considered thesis" I guess.

You're right..... it really IS none of my business....

I feel like this bill would have made a lot more sense if they hadn't had the word religious in front of freedom.

We're simply talking about the right to act in accordance with ones own beliefs. Religious or otherwise. Freedom of association and whether you are free to act with integrity so long as you aren't violating fundamental rights.

But I really don't care much about politics.

From a philosophical standpoint I have great reservations about the morality of fine -> arrest -> murdering people for not selling flowers for homosexual weddings. And I think the dishonesty on both sides of the debate for their mutual contempt and wrestling for the gun of power is a great vice. Cloaking everything in rights and other such nonsense when it is simply a power grab.

It is no different from the drug war as a power grab to arrest non-violent hippies who were threatening the culture. The only difference now is the progressive left has taken power and is imposing a new culture rather than being a counter culture. But they didn't do it from any grand virtuous route. It was a power play pure and simple. Wrestling for the gun and threatening the other culture once you have it.

There is no virtue in imposing your beliefs (rational or otherwise) on others through government power. It is just violence cloaked in rhetoric pure and simple.

We all work to enact laws that correspond with our morals and beliefs. Each and every one of us votes for candidates and issues that we believe will help shape economic and societal laws that we care about.

Further, we all discriminate. Every one of us. We all make decisions about certain people, or certain actions, as to their morality. We decide what is right, and what is wrong, and we want our society to reflect that. However, not everyone's vision of morality matches every other person's vision of what is moral and what is not.

I have a serious question for you. What if scientists discover that child molesters are genetically predisposed to molest children, and it is an urge that is all but irrepressible? How do we treat these people then? Do we simply allow them to do as they will, because they are genetically wired that way? What about those prone to violence? What if there is a genetic cause for that violence? I ask again, only in a different aspect, where do we draw the line? No one wants to answer, what is a step too far? No one wants to answer where the line is drawn, and if that line is then drawn forever, or is it a moving line, that adjusts as we, as a society, choose to permit more and more?

Also, once again, regarding other statements you have made on the board, I suggest that you actually read the Bible, if you want to use what it says in an intelligent manner. You claim that it is a "fairy tale", yet you obviously have a greatly mistaken view of what the Bible actually says in so many ways. If you wish to criticize, I will be more than happy to listen .... when you have read the book, and when you demonstrate that you have a perfunctory understanding of what it says. It is obvious, in so many of your posts, that you do not understand the teachings of the Bible whatsoever, nor do you understand the times in which it was written. I would suggest a good study Bible, that offers expert commentary as well as definitions of the original words used in key verses, and so on. It would help you to understand the difference, for example, between murder, as used in the 10 Commandments, and fighting in a war, or even capital punishment. You would understand the evolving manner in which God taught His people, as the laws the religious leaders set above and beyond that which God said, became so impossible to follow. God has a purpose in the Old Testament, and He has a purpose in the New Testament. The way you comment on the book is like a person watching a single 30 second commercial and determining whether the Star Wars trilogy is any good or not. You use passing phrases as weapons, you often you show that you do not understand the context in which they were written.

I started studying the Bible a little before the 1st of the year. I was going to start in the New Testament, because I always thought that it was somehow more important than the Old Testament. However, as I began my journey through the New Testament, I found that there were many references to the Old Testament, and that I did not have the background to truly understand, or appreciate, what was being taught in the New Testament. I am up to 2nd Kings now ..... and have a long way to go .... but I have a far better understanding of the events and patterns in the Bible, and the lessons God was teaching in the events of the Bible. The Old Testament is a Jewish account, and yet it is extremely uncomplimentary of the ancient Jews. Those who wrote and protected the book are shown to be headstrong, unfaithful, and many other things that no pious Jew would want to admit to. They were human. They would stray and return to God, and then their children would come to the fore, and they would follow the same path. It lays the groundwork for the events of the New Testament in a truly beautiful manner. You miss out on so much by not reading it all the way through. We all do. I always attended "New Testament" churches, and that is OK, but so much of the vital background is missing in such an environment.

Anyway, I invite you to actually read the book, instead of just judging it based on a very small understanding of what the Bible actually says. If you don't want to buy a Bible, you can always read one online for free.

Interesting take... and one I can't really argue with. The behavior exhibited by both sides invokes Jules Dawg's dad, and his take:

"People are no damned good."

Both the left and right are guilty of the same motivations... and both have been guilty of the same tactics over the years. It's why I've typed these words repeatedly in these forums: "Flip sides of the same mis-minted coin."

It's also why I'm not knee-deep in EVERY one of these threads... much of the time, folks are talking AT and PAST each other instead of talking TO each other.

_______________

My own POV: I thought this bill was unnecessary from the start. It's at its most general, it was a redundancy of the bill that Pres. Clinton signed into law, back in the '90's. At its heart, it is a further narrowing of that bill to grant a specific segment of the population the state-given right to potentially engage in exclusionary practices that were not expressly addresses in the federal law. It was a narrowly-focused, targeted initiative meant to cater to a specific, slim slice of America's population at large. And that's why it got called out by a wide and shockingly diverse number of other American citizens.

Left uncontested, it HAD THE POTENTIAL of opening a Pandora's box of discriminatory practices upon signing. Many people, organizations, and even major corporations saw this as a really bad idea, and called the Governor on it immediately.

This time, it wasn't just some sinister, cynical 'power grab' by the Left. On the contrary, it came from such a broad-based cross-section of Americana that it simply could not be ignored, played off, swept under the rug, or waited out. It's one thing when just the LGBT's take up a cause. It becomes something very different when the NFL, NCAA and companies as different as Wal-Mart and Apple are ALL saying the same thing.

There HAS been a culture shift on issues like this, but that in itself is nothing new. What's shocking to many Americans is the speed with which this particular shift has happened. Just 10 years ago, LGBT issues were a non-starter for one major political party, and a slam-dunk winner in the other, if the candidate was opposed to seeing them exercise everyday rights.

I think this rapid social shift has scared the $#!+ out of a segment of our population, who are now taking any and every measure they can to halt the trend. It's nothing new. But I'm also positive that it will end the same way all other oppositional initiatives have: defeat... followed by increasing irrelevance, followed by apathy, followed by:

"This is how your Great-grandparents used to think."
"Really?"
"Yes... really. Here it is- in your History book."
"Wow. It hardly seems possible."
"Yeah- I know. Wait 'til you read the chapters about women's suffrage, slavery, prohibition, Jim Crow laws, the 'war on drugs'....
"Stop, Daddy- please. I'm still having trouble with thinking about Aunt Grace and Aunt Sarah being treated like that. I'm trying to, but I can't."
"Good. That means that America is still working."


.02

You're quite wrong. Destruction of societies morals, destruction of the family unit, and the acceptance of bad behavior is the fastest way to destroy a country.

http://www.thecornellreview.com/articles/51551be567146325d3000007

Don't take my word for it.

Destruction of the ideal family unit is the number one cause of poverty. A husband and wife working together to support THEIR children always provides the ideal and best solution.

Kids growing up in broken and shattered homes because their parents couldn't stay faithful to their partner and the growing acceptance of sexual immorality is constantly a stepping stone to the acceptance of a dysfunctional family as "normal".

It has nothing to do with religion. It's simple fact that when you destroy the family unit you will destroy the nation. It takes a nation of strong families to become a strong nation.

You talk about gay rights. What about my rights to live my life without being FORCED to do something I view as BAD. While it is wrong to discriminate because of skin color it is perfectly fine to discriminate against people you view to behave poorly. For example we discriminate against pedophiles by mandating where they can or can't live. You can tell people that unless they wear certain clothes like shirts and shoes that they can't come in.

It is not the government's job to regulate who a business serves but the customers. If they don't like how you do business they can go somewhere else. No one is FORCED to shop somewhere.

ALL businesses can refuse to do business with anyone. A simple sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service." is all that is needed.

I laughed out loud when I read this.

If we're being honest, I stopped taking you seriously when you said "You're quite wrong. Don't take my word for it, here's an editorial from the Cornell student newspaper".

You seriously tried to say "You're wrong, what this 20 year old says proves it."?

Also, most everything you said after that was about shattered and broken homes, it veered from there, and had no collective thesis.

You basically said I was wrong, cited an article from a college paper, and then rambled about poor upbringings religion.

And then this gem...



You sound like a whiny child.

We're all forced to do something we view as bad. It's called life. Get a helmet and quit being a baby. Five years ago you were yelling at the queers that they couldn't marry.

Your side lost. Show some class.

My issue with religious people in this particular area of the bible is defining homosexuality as immoral or corrupt.

I think very very strong (and evidence based) arguments could be made backing the importance of two parent households, saving sex for marriage, and the general social approval of ones family and community of the partner you are choosing.

I think a lot of the distaste for homosexuality is the promiscuity. It is a bit odd that religious folk are so upset about gay marriage, when it is the gay hook-up culture that is far more oppositional to their core beliefs. Straight hook-up culture is even more of an outright assault on christian beliefs. Regardless of my opinion (which I like to backup with evidence when I can) the evidence points towards promiscuous behavior leading to future instability of relationships. And the detrimental effect casual sex has on people's ability to love is often not expressed by the left. The effect of divorce on children in my generation and how rudely no one is addressing our suffering is revolting.

For as much as I disapprove of the methodology of religion, they end up being supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence and philosophical arguments in many of their beliefs. Pair bonded relationships, community, striving for ethical behavior, avoiding vices like drugs and alcohol, providing for ones family and avoiding divorce. These are all backed as reasonable values by empirical evidence. They lead to happy well adjusted children and happy adults.

I think the Christians are terribly wrong about homosexuality as it relates to immorality. I really really do. I hope they can see past the behavior of some gay men and accept the biological realities of their attraction. That doesn't mean supporting hook-up culture, drug use, or other things which are validly very bad for you. But being attracted to other men and marrying one you love is perfectly within the core beliefs of christian doctrine with only a minor hitch which all the evidence points towards being biological and completely out of their control.

And often it seems the alternative on the left is a drug addled, casual sex, don't worry about a career, divorce if you're bored, nihilistic and hedonistic approach to life. Which the empirical evidence does not back as any sort of path to happiness.

There is a lot of wisdom in conservative Christian beliefs. I disagree with the methodology of why they believe them, but a lot of the beliefs are very good when you actually live them.

If one believes any of your fairy tail posts there is going to be no rational thought or logic going on. Only a show of hatred for christians.

No, I don't do things I view as bad unless its by accident. When I do I sure as hell done whine and cry and makes excuses like I can't help it I was made that was as an excuse for behaving poorly.

You can't argue worth a darn or even logically so you resort to name calling and insults. Look at kingkob's post. He knows how to make a decent argument without spewing your insults. I don't agree with him on the harmfulness of homosexual behavior being treated as ok but I can respect his opinion because he can talk without spewing insults or condescending.

You say my side lost but yet what you're really upset over is that people with strong morals are fighting against the corruption and decay that is eating away our country.

Strong family values are the strongest force of good for a nation. Period. I don't care if you believe in God. It's scientific fact. Ask any psychologist or any historian.

The simple truth is that some people are predisposed to do bad things. People who can't handle punishing them for it look to make excuses to justify not punishing them. So instead we allow our society to be weakened and corrupted. Thus it becomes doomed. All so you can indulge your baser animal behavior instead of rising above it to be a human.

jc.

nobody has answered this question.

why just gays? why not every other sin in the bible? people keep ignoring my post when i mention this.

why not ban adulterers? or people who don't even worship god? why not enforce the 10 commandment laws in your business?

thats why i call most of yall part timers. you only wanna complain about certain "sins" when its convenient for you. when it benefits you.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-yoga-doesnt-bend-rules-religious-freedom-203420054.html

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Yoga taught in a San Diego County school system is not a gateway to Hinduism and doesn't violate the religious rights of students or their parents, a California appeals court ruled Friday.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego upheld a lower court ruling that tossed out a family's lawsuit that tried to block Encinitas Union School District from teaching yoga as an alternative to traditional gym classes.

"While the practice of yoga may be religious in some contexts, yoga classes as taught in the district are, as the trial court determined, 'devoid of any religious, mystical, or spiritual trappings,'" the court wrote in a 3-0 opinion.

Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock and their two children had brought the lawsuit claiming yoga promoted Hinduism and inhibited Christianity. They were disappointed with the ruling and considering their options.

"No other court in the past 50 years has allowed public school officials to lead children in formal religious rituals like the Hindu liturgy of praying to, bowing to, and worshipping the sun god," attorney Dean Broyles said in a statement.

Paul V. Carelli IV, a lawyer for the district, said there were no rituals occurring in the classroom and no one was worshipping the sun or leading Hindu rites. The district said the practice is taught in a secular way to promote strength, flexibility and balance.

Yoga is now taught at schools across the country, but the district is believed to be the first with full-time yoga teachers at all schools.

A three-year grant from the K.P. Jois Foundation, a nonprofit group that promotes Ashtanga yoga, provides twice-weekly, 30-minute classes to the district's 5,600 students.

About 30 families opted out of the classes begun in 2011.

__________________

Damn we're against yoga now, christians? Sorry but leave it alone. I have fun going to the mall and seeing women in yoga pants. y'all trying to screw up everything.

There are 613 commandments. That's a lot to enforce for just your average pizza jockey.

so they can't just make it easy and pick the top 10?

even still, the point still stands. they are focusing on one sin and not the others.

Is that an option?

Let me start my list.

I'd say this perfectly depicts just how inhumane you become when you only read one book.

I have made this very point on several occasions on this thread and its predecessor. I see no need to unfairly single out one sin above another.

That said, I also see no need to offer approval or encouragement of sins.

Pope Francis Decries Present Day Killing Of Christians At Good Friday Service

AP By Frances D'Emilio


ROME (AP) - Pope Francis, presiding at the traditional Good Friday Colosseum procession, decried what he called the "complicit silence" about the killing of Christians.

The evening, torch-lit ceremony at the ancient arena recalls the suffering and death of Jesus by crucifixion.

After listening silently, often with head bowed and eyes tightly shut, to reflections read aloud about Jesus' suffering, Francis pressed what lately has been an urgent concern of his papacy -- the present-day martyrdom of Christians in parts of the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

"We see, even today, our brothers persecuted, beheaded and crucified, for their faith in you, in front of our eyes or often with our complicit silence," he said, as he prayed.

A few hours earlier, Francis had condemned the deadly attack by Islamic militants targeting Christians at a Kenyan university. Earlier this year he denounced the murder in Libya of 21 Coptic Christians by Islamic State-affiliated militants, saying they were slain simply for being Christian. And he has lamented how Christians in parts of the Middle East have been forced to flee their ancient communities to escape persecution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/pope-francis-good-friday_n_7001828.html

I can argue rationally just fine.

But when talking to people such as yourself who refer to homosexuals as subhuman...

I'd rather just mock your laughably poor arguments.



Pointing out that broken homes are bad and having a strong family unit is good has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a detriment to the society at large.



Again, you keep implying or outright saying that homosexuality is 'bad', but have yet to make a logical or fact based argument as to why.

PDR takes his "Considered Thesis" and just walks away...

Oh please remove that.

But but it was so very appropriate.

Most people want to keep their lunches down though.

I forgot that some people got a thing about pork. Sorry.

i don't get it.

I made YTown lose his lunch. Just move along, nothing to see here.