All The Things You Aren't Supposed to Talk About : Politics, Religion, & Money! && Grammar!!

Yeah that's pretty fucking bad.
Personally however, I do have reservations about forcing private individuals (not this corporation bs) to service events they aren't comfortable with, even if I don't agree with their stance. I dont think that has ever been a case though, even back with the bakers who wouldnt make a cake for a gay wedding.
 

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
Dang I am wayyy LTTP on this thread, I can't believe we have something like this! I am down for some discussion since I can rarely get my parents to discuss politics and religion with me, considering their extremely one sided view.

Alright, some background on me. My grandfather on my mom's side is an ambassador for Cuba, he is retired now and living in Namibia, but I have learned a lot from him. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution, back in the mid 1900s. He is a through and through communist, and insisted on being one, even when it wasn't the smart thing to do. IIRC, he had the option to have AC back in Cuba, but denied it because no Cubans had AC at the time. He was very involved in Africa, and was one of the many people to bring down Apartheid in South Africa, and was even called back by Mandela to come back to South Africa once he was president, to become the ambassador for Cuba to South Africa. (Check out this video, he appears on it:
).

When I was young I moved up to Mexico, where I would live until I was 9 years old. I spent roughly 7 years in Mexico, and I didn't realize much of what was going on. My dad was a business owner (my dad was also a key influence in my development). On the topic of my dad, he was sent to Russia when it was still the Soviet Union, and studied at St. Petersburg. He is very conservative with his beliefs, whilst my mom (the aforementioned grandfather's daughter) is very liberal. My dad was the religious one, though he didn't teach me any beliefs, my mom was a strict atheist, even though she made sure I was baptized Catholic. So in Mexico, that is when religion came into my life. My parents never made any movement to bring me into religion, but I don't recall when or how or where, but I was persistent on doing my First Communion. I was deathly scared of going to hell, since the word hell was easily thrown around in my childhood.

Around when I was 6 years old, my grandfather took me to Egypt, where I got my first taste of the conflict in the Middle East. I didn't realize what was going on then, but I remember that my grandfather was on a business trip there. Egypt kind of opened up my mind, and showed me other cultures.

So, this all kind of builds up to where I am today. I am a relapsed Catholic, and daily I still give thought to religion, and everyday I am more firm in my stance as an atheist. I relapsed a couple months ago, in November, around the time where I had to come out to my family (remember how I said that my dad was raised in Russia and was very conservative? Yeah that wasn't easy, and I have a deep hatred for all of this societal shit that made coming out so hard for me. Don't worry for me though, me and my dad see each other now and he still treats me as his son.). Politically, I began getting involved early last year. I gotta admit, I don't know much about economics, but I am 100% into civil rights.

Yeah, I want Bernie to win obviously. My background makes that clear. My role models that sort of shaped my political views are my grandfather(of course), Che Guevara, and Nelson Mandela. Stuff like those religious freedom bills make my blood boil, and honestly, seeing people defend Donald Trump's rhetoric is blood boiling for me too. I am very distinctly left wing.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Hmm, gotcha.

I thought that it was something about private organisations and private associations rules.
even in that case... church property is not the same as private property.. they get tax exemption, and as such can not be operated like a corporation choosing who they will and who they wont serve... it is grey area
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
Yeah that's pretty fucking bad.
Personally however, I do have reservations about forcing private individuals (not this corporation bs) to service events they aren't comfortable with, even if I don't agree with their stance. I dont think that has ever been a case though, even back with the bakers who wouldnt make a cake for a gay wedding.
As a gay man who just went through the wedding process, I can personally say that if I contacted a vendor and they declined to provide a service for my wedding for religious or personal reasons, I definitely would not have sued them. I may have thought poorly of them, maybe left a comment on yelp, but definitely not sued them.

My motto in life, that I try to live by but don't always succeed, is "Don't be an asshole."
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
even in that case... church property is not the same as private property.. they get tax exemption, and as such can not be operated like a corporation choosing who they will and who they wont serve... it is grey area
Religious organisations properties are considered something "sacred", because they're places of religious worship. Religious worship has to be protected unless we want a country where religion is forbidden.

So you can't force a Muslim private place of worship to accept woman showing hair or a church having no-gender bathrooms just because they're not 100% private property. Otherwise, religious liberty and worship liberty makes no sense. For example, how can I use my right of religious and worship liberty if the law don't let my mosque demand what my religious faith says that we have to do inside the mosque?
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Religious organisations properties are considered something "sacred", because they're places of religious worship. Religious worship has to be protected unless we want a country where religion is forbidden.

So you can't force a Muslim private place of worship to accept woman showing hair or a church having no-gender bathrooms just because they're not 100% private property. Otherwise, religious liberty and worship liberty makes no sense. For example, how can I use my right of religious and worship liberty if the law don't let my mosque demand what my religious faith says that we have to do inside the mosque?
It's a fair point to bring up.

One thing I will say though is which has more power: Constitutional Law, or Religious Doctrine? In other words, if doctrine says you can do something that is for example illegal by the law of the constitution, is it still acceptable? I'm not trying to turn this into a heated discussion or anything though. I'm merely stating how there is that grey area that Mighty mentioned. And if something could be interpreted as discrimination, or even a hate crime, could it still be allowed in a place of worship?

I'm thinking of this in more philosophical terms btw.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
It's a fair point to bring up.

One thing I will say though is which has more power: Constitutional Law, or Religious Doctrine? In other words, if doctrine says you can do something that is for example illegal by the law of the constitution, is it still acceptable? I'm not trying to turn this into a heated discussion or anything though. I'm merely stating how there is that grey area that Mighty mentioned. And if something could be interpreted as discrimination, or even a hate crime, could it still be allowed in a place of worship?

I'm thinking of this in more philosophical terms btw.
The constitution comes first than religious doctrine unless when the matter is worshipping or private religious rituals in a consensual way.

For example, a religious can't tell their followers to murder people or rape women. This is illegal, because it's not about a private religious ritual nor something that they do only to worship their god. It's a something that they'd do against the people without their agreement.

But if a religion demand their followers to worship god, on their temple, wearing batman costumes, the country's law can't forbid it.

If a religion only blesses marriage between batman fans, the country's law can't forbid it, because marriage, in a religion, is a private ritual based on their doctrine.

If a religion only blesses marriage through a ritual that includes consensual savage sex orgy watching Star Wars original trilogy, country's law can't forbid it. The might get HIV, but they agreed.

If a religion only blesses gay marriage and says that their faith doesn't allow them to celebrate straight marriage, the country's law can't forbid it.
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Religious organisations properties are considered something "sacred", because they're places of religious worship. Religious worship has to be protected unless we want a country where religion is forbidden.

So you can't force a Muslim private place of worship to accept woman showing hair or a church having no-gender bathrooms just because they're not 100% private property. Otherwise, religious liberty and worship liberty makes no sense. For example, how can I use my right of religious and worship liberty if the law don't let my mosque demand what my religious faith says that we have to do inside the mosque?
you are talking about behavior... I am talking about existence... for example.. MAYBE a religious organization can have 2 gay men kicked out if they are kissing, or holding hands as this constitutes gay behavior which isn't allowed on their premises... but they cannot tell a gay man that he is not allowed to be there PERIOD.... they can ban the behavior but not the person... that is the problem with that law.. it would allow ANY place to ban the person
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
you are talking about behavior... I am talking about existence... for example.. MAYBE a religious organization can have 2 gay men kicked out if they are kissing, or holding hands as this constitutes gay behavior which isn't allowed on their premises... but they cannot tell a gay man that he is not allowed to be there PERIOD.... they can ban the behavior but not the person... that is the problem with that law.. it would allow ANY place to ban the person
OK, that's right. I'm talking about religious affairs and behaviour.

In this case, baning people like that... this law is quite nazi stuff.
 
Last edited:
So there is a site... Called 'The Ulster Fry', its basically a Northern Ireland version of The Onion.
http://theulsterfry.com/world-news/local-man-offers-to-knock-trumps-pan-in/

A County Armagh man has has travelled to the USA to make a unique offer to the people of that troubled country – to personally knock the smug look off Donald Trump’s fat face.

48 year old Declan Flannery arrived in Washington early yesterday morning, and is understood to be “looking for a lift to wherever Trump is” so he can administer a severe beating.

Before he left for the States, Mr Flannery told the Ulster Fry that he’d been troubled for some time by an age old philosophical question. “If you could travel in time, would you go back to 1933 and kick in Hitler’s ringpiece?” he asked us. “In my opinion, if the Nazi leader had been given a severe boot up the hole before he seized power we might have avoided World War Two.”

“It’s difficult for the American people to deal with Trump so I’ll knock his pan in for them,” he continued, “Then I’ll stick every brick of that wall he’s always on about up his cavernous arse, and make him pay for it.”

This is not the first time that the former farm labourer has offered to physically assault an international political figure. In 1989 he was widely credited with bringing down the Berlin Wall after he ‘battered the melt’ out of East German dictator Erich Honecker.

For now, however, Mr Flannery must wait on the decision of the American people. “I can’t go around kicking the shite out of people without a democratic mandate,” he explained “I’ll have to wait and see how many likes and shares my ‘I’ll knock Trump’s pan in’ Facebook page gets.

A spokesman for America told us that they’d consider the offer, but there was a long queue of people wanted to punch the presidential hopeful’s gub “and Mr Flannery must wait his turn.”​

BTW, if any of you here actually want Trump as your president. Just don't bother talking to me...
 
BTW, if any of you here actually want Trump as your president. Just don't bother talking to me...
You can't ignore me if I quote you, motherfucker.

Anyway, does anyone listen to talk radio? Like, political talk radio? Since the summer I've been giving it a shot, just to broaden my scope further as I work.

In the beginning it was just NPR, or whatever version of that I get on this WNYC station. I kinda liked it for a bit, enough to donate 10 bucks (which was a mistake since they used to call me every other week to beg for more, got so bad I just cussed them out). For the most part it leaned very left, but I didnt mind since some shows gave time to let everyone chime in, although there never was a conservative talking head. It got worse with time though, the more focus I put into it. A lot of shit was let by with no checks, two examples in particular that soured me was the preaching of Marxism by BLM activists on one of the programs and a heavily insulting point made by a caller who identified as a BLM activist where he blamed the instability of the black family on immigrants, almost unironically praised Trump, and was met with agreement by the host and some feminist guest. And oh man, it gave me secondary uncomfortable-white-man syndrome, with the amount of times the terms "white privilege", "straight privilege" and "male privilege" were tossed around. Mind-numbing. I remember trying to call in on a segment where they were talking about the banning of certain "cultural-appropriation" halloween costumes in college campuses but was turned away because I sounded white, wtf? It was ugly shit.

So I dipped into conservative radio, which doesnt beg for money on-air every other month but is chock full of ads and not much talk. This was a fucking mixed bag too.

First up in the morning on conservative radio here is Don Imus. He fucking sucks. Ok, I dont know if he had a stroke at some point in his life or if he always sounded like this, but a man with that voice should not be allowed on talk radio, because it sounds like he barfs out every word on top of losing his place in a sentence. I'm sorry if that's offensive but it's truly unpleasant. He also isn't funny or introspective. A lot of his news stories begin with "Apparently" like dude research your shit or at least put up a front. He has a gaggle of stooges to laugh hysterically at his and his guests unfunny jokes. I just dont know how this man became a staple of talk radio, its mind-boggling to me. Stopped trying to listen to him very quickly, try to give him a shot with short bursts here and there but can't.

At the noon hours there is a combating heads show, a conservative and a liberal, Curtis and Kuby. I quite enjoy this show and pretty much always tune in when it's on. Its Brooklyn and New York voices I can understand, topics that switch between local and national levels and great banter between the callers. A lot of my enjoyment is due to the humor. Both guys take passionate and reasoned stances on topics and against each others points, sometimes they agree, mostly they don't. There's some yelling, some actual good jokes and a good amount of trolling the callers and each other. They also dedicate an hour to Trump, because there isnt a day when that man isn't in the news. A good amount of wrestling references too, which I personally appreciate. Pretty great show if you're a political quantum particle living in NYC.

Last dude I want to talk about on this front is Michael Savage. I dont know what I can say about this dude, he gives me a rage-boner maybe? A very stuck up dude, holier-and-smarter-than-thou mentality. I dont think he is racist but he tries his hardest to come off that way. Huge Trump supporter to the point of being highly annoying and hypocritical. On bad Trump media days he just will refuse to talk about Trump, saying "I dont want to talk about that, thats not my topic right now, lets talk about my dog for an hour kekekekeke". He's shills his books every second he can. He'll often make a point and support it by saying "look it up" or "read my book". I'm sure he's intelligent in his field of nutrition(?), but enough to belittle all his callers? No, definitely not from what I've heard. He shouts over them 99% of the time. He's not funny either, but at least slightly more introspective than Imus. He'll fawn over the dumbest shit and hate on the same thing the next week. Like rock music, even though his show fucking opens up with heavy metal which is a total tonal twister compared to his voice and topics. I dont know, I do listen every so often when the news is good because maybe he'll have something smart to say, which is a rarity. I call in every chance I get because he hands out his shitty book like candy if you say something he agrees with, but never get on. I just want it so I can burn it and post a photo on his facebook that he talks about for hours. He's nationally syndicated, how I dont know, so I only get half of his show before my station cuts him off. Merciful.

Yeah, so in this trip I have found 3 hours of talk radio worth listening to on weekdays. Its an apocalyptic landscape fmpov.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
So I want to spend a couple minutes expressing my thoughts on Mississippi's new Religion Freedom bill, and it's simply this, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!"

How in the absolute flying fuck can this be allowed, let alone tolerated? To discriminate against others based on religious beliefs? Sadly, MS is not the only state to have similar laws, and it sickens me we have fucking fascists in this country who insist that someone else's beliefs are more important than others. They aren't, and never will be. This whole business of freedom of religion is a two-way street. Not only are you allowed to exercise your own religion, it also my right not to bother or participate, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

But here's the thing. So if these businesses are allowed to deny services to people based on those parameters, then I guess that means some business could just as well deny those who ARE religious, and/or only accept those who are part of the LGBT community. I mean, it's only fair, right?

And not to mention the whole if you are trans-gender, you must use the bathroom that belongs to the gender that is on your birth certificate. I mean, wtf? How do you plan on even enforcing that in the first place? Are you going to have Police standing outside every Bathroom, checking your birth certificate to make sure you're in the right one? It's just mind-boggling to me that there are people who think this is acceptable practice.

You have every right to believe in what you want to believe, but I have every right not to believe in what you believe as well. And under no circumstances, is it tolerable to enforce your beliefs onto others, especially in the cases of discriminating against others.

Sorry for my rant, but man does this piss me off. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and fuck you to everyone who thinks this is a good idea.

*drops mic*

What people need to understand here is that freedom and rights pertain to both individuals. Often times the narrative only focuses on one individuals rights, while completely neglecting to acknowledge how this might infringe on the rights of another. Liberties need to be equally protected. If I have old school values, is it right for me to be declared a bigot? This is a colossal problem within the liberal/progressive movement. Believe what they believe, or we will assassinate your character. The so called offenders, in the processes off defending their own moral/religious beliefs, inevitably are discriminated against. If your demanding that an individual be forced to participate in an event that they have moral/religious objection to, you are in fact discriminating against them, because you are not respecting their beliefs. They are not pushing their beliefs onto another, but simply choosing to not participate in actions that they have objection with.

I believe the attack on Christians to be a despicable one, and a narrative that has been created to label Christians as bigots and a people of intolerance. I take offense to this primarily because the attacks are so one directional. Where is the call for Muslim Mosque to hold same sex marriages? Good fucking luck with that by the way. Muslim culture is far less tolerant than Christian culture, and yet our joke of a president condemns Christians while telling us to be tolerant of a far less tolerant religion. Its trendy right now in the liberal media to attack Christians, and it sickens me because when your only hearing one side of the story, it certainly can seem like Christians are discriminating hateful people. As you dig deeper you quickly see through this propaganda, and see how much good these churches do in our communities. Just up the road from me a local church does free health care for those in need. They constantly do outreach for the less fortunate, helping countless people obtain food, clothing and shelter. I will be damned if I am going to allow places like this to be slandered and ripped to shreds verbally, ignoring all the good they do, simply because they are not accommodating same sex marriages.

The sense of entitlement in our country sickens me. So many people are mistaking rights for privilege. The government has, and I agree with, made it lawful for same sex marriages. I believe the government is fully justified to acknowledge same sex marriages, and I personally do not believe marriage to be bound to religion, but bound to laws of our country instead. Your do not need, or are your entitled to a religious figure or establishment for your marital proceedings.

I have never understood why people throw such a fuss over being told that someone doesnt want you business, please do business elsewhere. If I am not welcome in your establishment, why in the world would I want to spend my money there? I wouldnt, and thats why I often question the authenticity of those so called victims. Are you really a vicitim? Or am I the white guy complaining because the Black Panthers wont let me join?

Dont get me wrong guys, I am not saying discrimination is ok. You should be able to buy a cheese burger without being discriminated against. I just think its wrong to try to undermine the principals of religious organizations. Now if a place that makes wedding cakes doesnt want to make one for a same sex marriage? Well, I dont know that they should be exempt, but do you really want them making your wedding cake when they obviously dont want to? Non religious organizations should abide to the laws of our country.

I hope all this makes sense, because I am actually a Libertarian. Very fiscally conservative, but extremely socially liberal. When we start placing one groups rights above that of another, things can spiral out of control very quickly. Unlike my very conservative parents, I believe in same sex marriage from a government perspective, but I also believe a church has the the right to interpret marriage as only being between a man and a women. I believe if a womens right to choose, even though I believe its a choice that often causes that women severe mental distress. I even believe in the right to shoot heroine, do cocaine, smoke weed, drink alcohol, or drink a pint of draino if you wish. We are an intelligent society, if we wish to harm our own health, then so be it. On the flip side, if your drunk out of your mind putting others in danger, now your infringing someone else rights, and that is certainly wrong, and should be punishable, and not an excuse.
 
Last edited:

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
What people need to understand here is that freedom and rights pertain to both individuals. Often times the narrative only focuses on one individuals rights, while completely neglecting to acknowledge how this might infringe on the rights of another. Liberties need to be equally protected. If I have old school values, is it right for me to be declared a bigot? This is a colossal problem within the liberal/progressive movement. Believe what they believe, or we will assassinate your character. The so called offenders, in the processes off defending their own moral/religious beliefs, inevitably are discriminated against. If your demanding that an individual be forced to participate in an event that they have moral/religious objection to, you are in fact discriminating against them, because you are not respecting their beliefs. They are not pushing their beliefs onto another, but simply choosing to not participate in actions that they have objection with.

I believe the attack on Christians to be a despicable one, and a narrative that has been created to label Christians as bigots and a people of intolerance. I take offense to this primarily because the attacks are so one directional. Where is the call for Muslim Mosque to hold same sex marriages? Good fucking luck with that by the way. Muslim culture is far less tolerant than Christian culture, and yet our joke of a president condemns Christians while telling us to be tolerant of a far less tolerant religion. Its trendy right now in the liberal media to attack Christians, and it sickens me because when your only hearing one side of the story, it certainly can seem like Christians are discriminating hateful people. As you dig deeper you quickly see through this propaganda, and see how much good these churches do in our communities. Just up the road from me a local church does free health care for those in need. They constantly do outreach for the less fortunate, helping countless people obtain food, clothing and shelter. I will be damned if I am going to allow places like this to be slandered and ripped to shreds verbally, ignoring all the good they do, simply because they are not accommodating same sex marriages.

The sense of entitlement in our country sickens me. So many people are mistaking rights for privilege. The government has, and I agree with, made it lawful for same sex marriages. I believe the government is fully justified to acknowledge same sex marriages, and I personally do not believe marriage to be bound to religion, but bound to laws of our country instead. Your do not need, or are your entitled to a religious figure or establishment for your marital proceedings.

I have never understood why people throw such a fuss over being told that someone doesnt want you business, please do business elsewhere. If I am not welcome in your establishment, why in the world would I want to spend my money there? I wouldnt, and thats why I often question the authenticity of those so called victims. Are you really a vicitim? Or am I the white guy complaining because the Black Panthers wont let me join?

Dont get me wrong guys, I am not saying discrimination is ok. You should be able to buy a cheese burger without being discriminated against. I just think its wrong to try to undermine the principals of religious organizations. Now if a place that makes wedding cakes doesnt want to make one for a same sex marriage? Well, I dont know that they should be exempt, but do you really want them making your wedding cake when they obviously dont want to? Non religious organizations should abide to the laws of our country.

I hope all this makes sense, because I am actually a Libertarian. Very fiscally conservative, but extremely socially liberal. When we start placing one groups rights above that of another, things can spiral out of control very quickly. Unlike my very conservative parents, I believe in same sex marriage from a government perspective, but I also believe a church has the the right to interpret marriage as only being between a man and a women. I believe if a womens right to choose, even though I believe its a choice that often causes that women severe mental distress. I even believe in the right to shoot heroine, do cocaine, smoke weed, drink alcohol, or drink a pint of draino if you wish. We are an intelligent society, if we wish to harm our own health, then so be it. On the flip side, if your drunk out of your mind putting others in danger, now your infringing someone else rights, and that is certainly wrong, and should be punishable, and not an excuse.
I have not liked post or partisapated in this thread which is fine. But when a post like this comes outta nowhere it makes me re-think how I should be using my RAP button. Very level headed fair, and common sense post that respects all sides. A true America post well done Goodtwin.
 

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
What people need to understand here is that freedom and rights pertain to both individuals. Often times the narrative only focuses on one individuals rights, while completely neglecting to acknowledge how this might infringe on the rights of another. Liberties need to be equally protected. If I have old school values, is it right for me to be declared a bigot? This is a colossal problem within the liberal/progressive movement. Believe what they believe, or we will assassinate your character. The so called offenders, in the processes off defending their own moral/religious beliefs, inevitably are discriminated against. If your demanding that an individual be forced to participate in an event that they have moral/religious objection to, you are in fact discriminating against them, because you are not respecting their beliefs. They are not pushing their beliefs onto another, but simply choosing to not participate in actions that they have objection with.

I believe the attack on Christians to be a despicable one, and a narrative that has been created to label Christians as bigots and a people of intolerance. I take offense to this primarily because the attacks are so one directional. Where is the call for Muslim Mosque to hold same sex marriages? Good fucking luck with that by the way. Muslim culture is far less tolerant than Christian culture, and yet our joke of a president condemns Christians while telling us to be tolerant of a far less tolerant religion. Its trendy right now in the liberal media to attack Christians, and it sickens me because when your only hearing one side of the story, it certainly can seem like Christians are discriminating hateful people. As you dig deeper you quickly see through this propaganda, and see how much good these churches do in our communities. Just up the road from me a local church does free health care for those in need. They constantly do outreach for the less fortunate, helping countless people obtain food, clothing and shelter. I will be damned if I am going to allow places like this to be slandered and ripped to shreds verbally, ignoring all the good they do, simply because they are not accommodating same sex marriages.

The sense of entitlement in our country sickens me. So many people are mistaking rights for privilege. The government has, and I agree with, made it lawful for same sex marriages. I believe the government is fully justified to acknowledge same sex marriages, and I personally do not believe marriage to be bound to religion, but bound to laws of our country instead. Your do not need, or are your entitled to a religious figure or establishment for your marital proceedings.

I have never understood why people throw such a fuss over being told that someone doesnt want you business, please do business elsewhere. If I am not welcome in your establishment, why in the world would I want to spend my money there? I wouldnt, and thats why I often question the authenticity of those so called victims. Are you really a vicitim? Or am I the white guy complaining because the Black Panthers wont let me join?
I agree with a lot of this, mainly the parts that I didn't quote are the ones that I agree with, but I am very lazy and will address my issue with this by quoting this section.

Let's get one thing clear, the biggest religion on the planet is Christianity, with a membership of over 2 billion. Under 20% of the world is atheist, (I think it's like 18%, counting agnostics). Christianity on the other hand has a whooping 33% of the world population. Christianity is NOT under attack. There are people who have grown resentful of Christianity, but Christianophobia is not a popular thing (at least not on the level that Islamophobia has been).

The biggest controversies with same sex marriage have not been around gays not being able to be married at a church, but rather them being denied their basic rights. Yeah, there have been cases of gays complaining about it, but how would you feel if your faith denied you basic rights?

And I am going to speak from personal experience, I used to be heavily religious and I still have incredible respect for everybody who follows some sort of faith. However, there has not been a single church that I have been to that has not been homophobic in one way or another. IIRC, we have this church called Little Flower, but trust me its not little at all. Its one of the biggest catholic churches in my city, 90% of our hispanic population goes there. One of the padres dedicated a whole mass talking about how being gay is wrong.

One of my protestant friends, one that has done so much for me and has helped me so much, is extremely biased against homosexuality too. One day I was in her car with her parents, and the topic came up, and they compared homosexuality to alcoholism.

My cousin, who goes to a private christian school, the day that gay marriage got legalized I still remember what he said. Any church that's ok with gays is not a church at all. Granted, this was before I came out. The first thing he said when I came out? "You're lucky that you live in this time period."

So quit the bullshit about Christianity being under attack. It is not. And you sure as hell can bet that when it becomes under attack I will be there to argue for it. There are so many other cultures out there under attack, like Islam, like the LGBT community, like the Palestenians. Christianity is the last culture to be attacked, because whilst you may feel attacked, you are not. Every culture deserves freedom, but we cannot have other cultures suppressing others.

And sorry for the bad grammar, I typed this up on my phone.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I agree with a lot of this, mainly the parts that I didn't quote are the ones that I agree with, but I am very lazy and will address my issue with this by quoting this section.

Let's get one thing clear, the biggest religion on the planet is Christianity, with a membership of over 2 billion. Under 20% of the world is atheist, (I think it's like 18%, counting agnostics). Christianity on the other hand has a whooping 33% of the world population. Christianity is NOT under attack. There are people who have grown resentful of Christianity, but Christianophobia is not a popular thing (at least not on the level that Islamophobia has been).

The biggest controversies with same sex marriage have not been around gays not being able to be married at a church, but rather them being denied their basic rights. Yeah, there have been cases of gays complaining about it, but how would you feel if your faith denied you basic rights?

And I am going to speak from personal experience, I used to be heavily religious and I still have incredible respect for everybody who follows some sort of faith. However, there has not been a single church that I have been to that has not been homophobic in one way or another. IIRC, we have this church called Little Flower, but trust me its not little at all. Its one of the biggest catholic churches in my city, 90% of our hispanic population goes there. One of the padres dedicated a whole mass talking about how being gay is wrong.

One of my protestant friends, one that has done so much for me and has helped me so much, is extremely biased against homosexuality too. One day I was in her car with her parents, and the topic came up, and they compared homosexuality to alcoholism.

My cousin, who goes to a private christian school, the day that gay marriage got legalized I still remember what he said. Any church that's ok with gays is not a church at all. Granted, this was before I came out. The first thing he said when I came out? "You're lucky that you live in this time period."

So quit the bullshit about Christianity being under attack. It is not. And you sure as hell can bet that when it becomes under attack I will be there to argue for it. There are so many other cultures out there under attack, like Islam, like the LGBT community, like the Palestenians. Christianity is the last culture to be attacked, because whilst you may feel attacked, you are not. Every culture deserves freedom, but we cannot have other cultures suppressing others.

And sorry for the bad grammar, I typed this up on my phone.
What basic rights are you referring to? I'm all for equality, but it often feels like the rhetoric is tolerance for one groups beliefs at the expense of anothers. This is a two way street, in one hand I don't believe it's right to deny marrital rights to same sex couple's as far government is cobcerned, but Churches should be excempt from participating due to it being against their beliefs. Going to a Church is a choice, if they condemn same sex marriage, that's their right, and everyone has the choice to attend such a place or not.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
I completely agree with what @Goodtwin said about a Church should be allowed to say whether they want to host same sex marriages or not. You may find some in the LGBT community that have issue with it, but the large majority don't have a strong desire to get married in a church. They would rather celebrate their marriage in a place they feel safe and comfortable and with people that love them unconditionally.

I think the issue with the LGBT community and Christianity has less to do with the actual Church and more to do with the people identifying as Christians that are speaking their opinion.

Yes, it is a free country, and people are allowed to vocalize their opinions any way that they like, but Free Speech only means that the Government cannot stop you from saying what you want. It does not protect the speaker from having others condemn what they are saying. And this goes both ways.

I do not believe there is a war on Christianity. But I do believe there is a public backlash against bigotry and hate speak, and unfortunately, the name given to those receiving the backlash right now is Christian. I don't believe that is fair to Christians. From what I can see and have experienced since coming out 16 years ago, the majority of the religiously-inclined in America do not have a problem with the LGBT community, but there is a vocal minority that do, and it is that vocal minority that gets the headlines, the airtime, etc. I believe this is what has created the "war" between Christians and the LGBT. True Christians are not the ones spewing hate, because they know God teaches love, that God does not make mistakes, that we are all God's children, and that it is not our place to judge. And I can say for a fact that the LGBT community does not have an issue with religion, the church, etc, they just have an issue with people telling them they are second-class citizens, will burn in hell, that they are destroying America, and that their love is no better than incest or pedophilia.

Humans have problems with things that they do not understand or frighten them. And you have people out there in the world playing on those fears.

What I have noticed over the last 16 years is that when someone has an LGBT person in their family or their group of friends, this opens their minds and way of thinking. They see that we are not so different. This works both ways. When an LGBT person has someone in their life living the word of God from a place of love and acceptance, this helps the LGBT person to realize that the Church, religion, and God do not hate them.

I try to live my life in a way that can open hearts and change minds. I’ve seen it with my family. I’ve even seen it with a former boss who was a Deacon in the Baptist church who told me that being friends with me caused him to reevaluate many of his beliefs.

So, I don’t think it should be a war on Christianity. I think it should be backlash against Bob and Kathy and Susan – individuals who are spewing the hate and discrimination. It’s not fair to lump all of it on Christians when it is individuals doing the hating and not the faith itself.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
What people need to understand here is that freedom and rights pertain to both individuals. Often times the narrative only focuses on one individuals rights, while completely neglecting to acknowledge how this might infringe on the rights of another. Liberties need to be equally protected. If I have old school values, is it right for me to be declared a bigot? This is a colossal problem within the liberal/progressive movement. Believe what they believe, or we will assassinate your character. The so called offenders, in the processes off defending their own moral/religious beliefs, inevitably are discriminated against. If your demanding that an individual be forced to participate in an event that they have moral/religious objection to, you are in fact discriminating against them, because you are not respecting their beliefs. They are not pushing their beliefs onto another, but simply choosing to not participate in actions that they have objection with.

I believe the attack on Christians to be a despicable one, and a narrative that has been created to label Christians as bigots and a people of intolerance. I take offense to this primarily because the attacks are so one directional. Where is the call for Muslim Mosque to hold same sex marriages? Good fucking luck with that by the way. Muslim culture is far less tolerant than Christian culture, and yet our joke of a president condemns Christians while telling us to be tolerant of a far less tolerant religion. Its trendy right now in the liberal media to attack Christians, and it sickens me because when your only hearing one side of the story, it certainly can seem like Christians are discriminating hateful people. As you dig deeper you quickly see through this propaganda, and see how much good these churches do in our communities. Just up the road from me a local church does free health care for those in need. They constantly do outreach for the less fortunate, helping countless people obtain food, clothing and shelter. I will be damned if I am going to allow places like this to be slandered and ripped to shreds verbally, ignoring all the good they do, simply because they are not accommodating same sex marriages.

The sense of entitlement in our country sickens me. So many people are mistaking rights for privilege. The government has, and I agree with, made it lawful for same sex marriages. I believe the government is fully justified to acknowledge same sex marriages, and I personally do not believe marriage to be bound to religion, but bound to laws of our country instead. Your do not need, or are your entitled to a religious figure or establishment for your marital proceedings.

I have never understood why people throw such a fuss over being told that someone doesnt want you business, please do business elsewhere. If I am not welcome in your establishment, why in the world would I want to spend my money there? I wouldnt, and thats why I often question the authenticity of those so called victims. Are you really a vicitim? Or am I the white guy complaining because the Black Panthers wont let me join?

Dont get me wrong guys, I am not saying discrimination is ok. You should be able to buy a cheese burger without being discriminated against. I just think its wrong to try to undermine the principals of religious organizations. Now if a place that makes wedding cakes doesnt want to make one for a same sex marriage? Well, I dont know that they should be exempt, but do you really want them making your wedding cake when they obviously dont want to? Non religious organizations should abide to the laws of our country.

I hope all this makes sense, because I am actually a Libertarian. Very fiscally conservative, but extremely socially liberal. When we start placing one groups rights above that of another, things can spiral out of control very quickly. Unlike my very conservative parents, I believe in same sex marriage from a government perspective, but I also believe a church has the the right to interpret marriage as only being between a man and a women. I believe if a womens right to choose, even though I believe its a choice that often causes that women severe mental distress. I even believe in the right to shoot heroine, do cocaine, smoke weed, drink alcohol, or drink a pint of draino if you wish. We are an intelligent society, if we wish to harm our own health, then so be it. On the flip side, if your drunk out of your mind putting others in danger, now your infringing someone else rights, and that is certainly wrong, and should be punishable, and not an excuse.
You make some very good points, and what's interesting is you talking about how Christians seems to be the ones getting singled out these days. What I will say though is I think part of it has to do with a few select individuals who give Christians a bad rap. Just as an example, that one Pastor who feel that Gays should be killed. It's like, "You're not helping your case here, buddy." What appears to be happening, as is usually the case, a vastly small minority is causing this majority in uproar against the bigger picture. And even as someone who chooses not to be religious, I find it sad because we should all be able to live and believe in how we choose.

I don't hate Christians, nor do I hate Muslims. Hell, I don't even hate Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons. What they choose to believe is up to them. But like I said, and SJ mentioned this too, you get this small, yet vocal minority that paints a bad image. It's as though these religious organizations have a reputation to hold, and these minorities dampened that to an extent, it causes people such as myself to question what in the hell is going on here. It causes me to almost despise people of certain religions because of it. You just start to have this hatred towards people, and it makes me sad after the fact when I think about my friends, including people here on TNE, who are religious.

I think one thing to think about with me is I have a major issue with Government and Religion intertwining with each other. In other words, people using religion as a excuse or a scapegoat for their own political agenda. I have an issue for example with some states that say in order to hold public office, you must have a belief in a diety/higher power/God. Why? Why should that be a basis for holding public office when government is more or less supposed to be secular?

And then you have that bloated moron County clerk from last year who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples because it "infringes" on her beliefs. Motherfucker, that's your goddamn job to issue marriage licenses. Either do the job you were elected to do as per the law states (which includes issuing marriage licenses for both heterosexual, and same-sex couples as the law states), or resign your position. Stop making your religion as the excuse. Do your fucking job.

Now if she were just stating her opinion on a blog, that'd be one thing, but because she's an elected official who was refusing to do her job as what she was hired to do, I have a huge problem with that. And if it bothered her that much, she should've resigned right then and there over personal reasons.
Sorry for the additional rant, everyone. I swear I'm a very nice and lovable teddy bear in person though. :mfurry:
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
You make some very good points, and what's interesting is you talking about how Christians seems to be the ones getting singled out these days. What I will say though is I think part of it has to do with a few select individuals who give Christians a bad rap. Just as an example, that one Pastor who feel that Gays should be killed. It's like, "You're not helping your case here, buddy." What appears to be happening, as is usually the case, a vastly small minority is causing this majority in uproar against the bigger picture. And even as someone who chooses not to be religious, I find it sad because we should all be able to live and believe in how we choose.

I don't hate Christians, nor do I hate Muslims. Hell, I don't even hate Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons. What they choose to believe is up to them. But like I said, and SJ mentioned this too, you get this small, yet vocal minority that paints a bad image. It's as though these religious organizations have a reputation to hold, and these minorities dampened that to an extent, it causes people such as myself to question what in the hell is going on here. It causes me to almost despise people of certain religions because of it. You just start to have this hatred towards people, and it makes me sad after the fact when I think about my friends, including people here on TNE, who are religious.

I think one thing to think about with me is I have a major issue with Government and Religion intertwining with each other. In other words, people using religion as a excuse or a scapegoat for their own political agenda. I have an issue for example with some states that say in order to hold public office, you must have a belief in a diety/higher power/God. Why? Why should that be a basis for holding public office when government is more or less supposed to be secular?

And then you have that bloated moron County clerk from last year who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples because it "infringes" on her beliefs. Motherfucker, that's your goddamn job to issue marriage licenses. Either do the job you were elected to do as per the law states (which includes issuing marriage licenses for both heterosexual, and same-sex couples as the law states), or resign your position. Stop making your religion as the excuse. Do your fucking job.

Now if she were just stating her opinion on a blog, that'd be one thing, but because she's an elected official who was refusing to do her job as what she was hired to do, I have a huge problem with that. And if it bothered her that much, she should've resigned right then and there over personal reasons.
Sorry for the additional rant, everyone. I swear I'm a very nice and lovable teddy bear in person though. :mfurry:
I agree with you on all that. I will say this on the clerk is doing marriage licenses, couldn't that office handled that in house? There are typically multiple people at these offices that can issue marriage licenses, I have a feeling there was at least one person who has no objection with issuing them. In general though, your religious beliefs are not an excuse to not so your job. The truth is this, we here at TNE could hash this out coming up with a solution that works for all those willing to be reasonable. For those that are hell bent on being unreasonable cannot be reasoned with. Unfortunately politicians get involved, and things usually get ugly quick. These issues are not black and white, and certain compromises must be made.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I agree with a lot of this, mainly the parts that I didn't quote are the ones that I agree with, but I am very lazy and will address my issue with this by quoting this section.

Let's get one thing clear, the biggest religion on the planet is Christianity, with a membership of over 2 billion. Under 20% of the world is atheist, (I think it's like 18%, counting agnostics). Christianity on the other hand has a whooping 33% of the world population. Christianity is NOT under attack. There are people who have grown resentful of Christianity, but Christianophobia is not a popular thing (at least not on the level that Islamophobia has been).

The biggest controversies with same sex marriage have not been around gays not being able to be married at a church, but rather them being denied their basic rights. Yeah, there have been cases of gays complaining about it, but how would you feel if your faith denied you basic rights?

And I am going to speak from personal experience, I used to be heavily religious and I still have incredible respect for everybody who follows some sort of faith. However, there has not been a single church that I have been to that has not been homophobic in one way or another. IIRC, we have this church called Little Flower, but trust me its not little at all. Its one of the biggest catholic churches in my city, 90% of our hispanic population goes there. One of the padres dedicated a whole mass talking about how being gay is wrong.

One of my protestant friends, one that has done so much for me and has helped me so much, is extremely biased against homosexuality too. One day I was in her car with her parents, and the topic came up, and they compared homosexuality to alcoholism.

My cousin, who goes to a private christian school, the day that gay marriage got legalized I still remember what he said. Any church that's ok with gays is not a church at all. Granted, this was before I came out. The first thing he said when I came out? "You're lucky that you live in this time period."

So quit the bullshit about Christianity being under attack. It is not. And you sure as hell can bet that when it becomes under attack I will be there to argue for it. There are so many other cultures out there under attack, like Islam, like the LGBT community, like the Palestenians. Christianity is the last culture to be attacked, because whilst you may feel attacked, you are not. Every culture deserves freedom, but we cannot have other cultures suppressing others.

And sorry for the bad grammar, I typed this up on my phone.
A church is only homophobic is a church states that LGBT people should be killed or if they want gays to have their rights denied (like the right to have a civil marriage) or these sort of things.

When the Church says that gays go to hell, homosexuality is a sin, an addiction, or things like that, the Church is just being loyal to their faith and that's exactly what a religion is meant to do.

The church also say that a lot of people go to hell for a lot of other reasons. The church says that you go to hell if you cheat your spouse too. Imagine how that hurts the feelings of the
"movement of wife cheaters of america". :D
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
A church is only homophobic is a church states that LGBT people should be killed or if they want gays to have their rights denied (like the right to have a civil marriage) or these sort of things.

When the Church says that gays go to hell, homosexuality is a sin, an addiction, or things like that, the Church is just being loyal to their faith and that's exactly what a religion is meant to do.

The church also say that a lot of people go to hell for a lot of other reasons. The church says that you go to hell if you cheat your spouse too. Imagine how that hurts the feelings of the
"movement of wife cheaters of america". :D
I think the moral of it all is we are all sinners. And if you ask me, God has more important things to worry about than caring about little Johnny playing with his weenie while reading through his mother's victoria's secret magazine. Little Johnny is quite...:mcool:...the sinnerman.

 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I think the moral of it all is we are all sinners. And if you ask me, God has more important things to worry about than caring about little Johnny playing with his weenie while reading through his mother's victoria's secret magazine. Little Johnny is quite...:mcool:...the sinnerman.

I mean, there are religious that think that extra terrestrial beings are superior than human beings.

What can we say? This is not "humanphobia", this is just their faith.
 
Last edited:

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
There are religious that think that extra terrestrial beings are superior than human beings.

What can we say? This is not "humanphobia", this is just their faith.
Well, and people say that Dolphins are highly intelligent too, but I doubt they are Dolphinphilists (is that even a word?).
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
People inherently want to believe that their own sins are less incriminating than the ones they cherry pick as the"bad" ones. It's pretty clear, biblically, that sin is sin, no better or worse than the next. You cannot acquire the gift by doing good deeds, or by limiting your sins. It's a gift from Christ, you either accept his gift or you do not. You cannot earn it. Church going people are still people, same short comings we all have. It's only natural for people active in the church to feel more entitled and deserving of this gift, but biblically it's just not the case. This can be alarming for a lot of people. People want to believe that terrible people are punished in hell, and good decent people are rewarded in heaven. That's not what the bible says at all.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
People inherently want to believe that their own sins are less incriminating than the ones they cherry pick as the"bad" ones. It's pretty clear, biblically, that sin is sin, no better or worse than the next. You cannot acquire the gift by doing good deeds, or by limiting your sins. It's a gift from Christ, you either accept his gift or you do not. You cannot earn it. Church going people are still people, same short comings we all have. It's only natural for people active in the church to feel more entitled and deserving of this gift, but biblically it's just not the case. This can be alarming for a lot of people. People want to believe that terrible people are punished in hell, and good decent people are rewarded in heaven. That's not what the bible says at all.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
This this this this, and this this. I've had this coversation with many people many times. People say "well you go to church looks like you have been blessed it must be easy being you". Ummmmm no, nope not at all. I'm still sinful in my own life that is why I need Christ with me daily and that relationship in itself is never just a cake walk. And my sin in my life is just the same as another persons there on equal ground in Gods eyes.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
This this this this, and this this. I've had this coversation with many people many times. People say "well you go to church looks like you have been blessed it must be easy being you". Ummmmm no, nope not at all. I'm still sinful in my own life that is why I need Christ with me daily and that relationship in itself is never just a cake walk. And my sin in my life is just the same as another persons there on equal ground in Gods eyes.
Going off on this, here are a few quotes that reflect on those struggles and not living in a cake walk.

"Success is not the absence of failure. Success is persistence through failure."

"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one." <----This one I think speaks volumes in particular for you, Matt

And finally...

"Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them."

Btw, those last two were from Bruce Lee.
 

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
What basic rights are you referring to? I'm all for equality, but it often feels like the rhetoric is tolerance for one groups beliefs at the expense of anothers. This is a two way street, in one hand I don't believe it's right to deny marrital rights to same sex couple's as far government is cobcerned, but Churches should be excempt from participating due to it being against their beliefs. Going to a Church is a choice, if they condemn same sex marriage, that's their right, and everyone has the choice to attend such a place or not.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
I'm referring to marriage. I should've explained my line of thought more. If you have always been religious, and you have always believed, and wish to get married under that faith, wouldn't it hurt if you get denied because your marriage is sinful according to the church?

And that was just a concession, trying to see the point of view of those who have gotten denied, it wasn't really an argument, that's why I didn't build on it. It was just another view to see it as, not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone

EDIT: For the record, I don't think that a church should be a place for LGBT to get married at considering that most of the hostility for them comes from religion. I agree that they are allowed to get to choose who gets married within there, I know what the Bible says, so we shouldn't be forcing them to do anything.


And I have a whole other argument as to why churches should become more accepting towards LGBT. But that's for another time. I see your point however.
 
Last edited:

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
By the way, I just read more about the new Mississippi law, and that is indeed fucked up. I'm in favor of prtecting religious liberties, but the law blatantly allows for descrimination in the private sector. Non religious entities can fire some one for being gay? For the record, that is not a law that I can support......Not even a little.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
A church is only homophobic is a church states that LGBT people should be killed or if they want gays to have their rights denied (like the right to have a civil marriage) or these sort of things.

When the Church says that gays go to hell, homosexuality is a sin, an addiction, or things like that, the Church is just being loyal to their faith and that's exactly what a religion is meant to do.

The church also say that a lot of people go to hell for a lot of other reasons. The church says that you go to hell if you cheat your spouse too. Imagine how that hurts the feelings of the
"movement of wife cheaters of america". :D
I know you are just trying to be funny, but you just implied that being gay is the same as being unfaithful... That being gay is a selfish choice.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
By the way, I just read more about the new Mississippi law, and that is indeed fucked up. I'm in favor of prtecting religious liberties, but the law blatantly allows for descrimination in the private sector. Non religious entities can fire some one for being gay? For the record, that is not a law that I can support......Not even a little.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
Oh it's for sure wrong. And I think this is what @Shoulder was talking about when he said "there are Christians out there that give the group a bad rap". It's because of laws like this that we look like bigots and hypocrites. Where if we were makin the laws instead of these representatives I would say hopefully we could make laws much better than this. I don't see any "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" in this law.

And I guess that's what drives me crazy about the media and politicians like this. They always interview the craziest Christian they can find, or the craziest church. Well y'all know, just like when they interview someone about guns and they go get Ted Nugent.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
By the way, I just read more about the new Mississippi law, and that is indeed fucked up. I'm in favor of prtecting religious liberties, but the law blatantly allows for descrimination in the private sector. Non religious entities can fire some one for being gay? For the record, that is not a law that I can support......Not even a little.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
It's essentially the 21st Century equivalent of discriminating against blacks during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, this whole thing about the LGBT community is the Civil Rights movement all over again, but with a rainbow of colors this time.

Joking aside, 50 years from now, even 20 perhaps, people will look back at this as "What the hell were they thinking?"

Actually, I lie. We're already saying that...:mplain:
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I know you are just trying to be funny, but you just implied that being gay is the same as being unfaithful... That being gay is a selfish choice.
Yes, I did, but it's not my teaching. It's Church's teaching. For the Church, being gay is the same as being unfaithful to your spouse. Both are sins. If people are born gay, the Church doesn't care. The Church is not a science laboratory or a biology/philosophy/anthropology school to try to understand why people are gay or not. The Church is like a club where people follow the teachings of Jesus and his apostles as they were written on a collection of books that are believed as sacred.

What I meant is that being gay (and meaning gay I mean having sexual intercourse with people with the same sex), for the Church, is a sin like any other sins. It's not a special sin for the Church. The Church didn't once decide "well, from now on we're going to persecute gays because we don't like them.".

The Church believes for 2000 years that if you go to bed with a person with the same sex you're committing a sin the same way you're committing a sin when you have sex with a prostitute or any other sin. The Jews believe the same for 5000 years or more, I guess. The Muslims believe the same for 1500 years or more.

PS: The Church doesn't believe that a sin is a simple selfish choice. For the Church, people sin because they're corrupted by the sin. Once you follow Jesus you start to become a saint where God will help you to follow him instead of follow your sinful nature. So, for the Church your sinful nature makes you want to have sex with a prostitute the same way that it makes you wants to lie, to cheat, to steal or to have homosexual intercourse. The source of the sin is the same in all cases and it's a fight between your soul and flesh.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
What's the consensus on the 2nd amendment? There are a lot of anti gun people out there, especially when it comes to semi auto rifles, but I personally find the 2nd amendment to be very clear, and very important. The second amendment was written, not for self defense against intruders, not for hunting, but to maintain a state militia capable of fighting and defending itself from an oppressive government. Without the 2nd amedment, the rest could and probably would have been resinded by now.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
What's the consensus on the 2nd amendment? There are a lot of anti gun people out there, especially when it comes to semi auto rifles, but I personally find the 2nd amendment to be very clear, and very important. The second amendment was written, not for self defense against intruders, not for hunting, but to maintain a state militia capable of fighting and defending itself from an oppressive government. Without the 2nd amedment, the rest could and probably would have been resinded by now.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
I think exactly like you do. I'm cool with the 2nd and I think we should exercise it.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
my issue with the second amendment is that it is an illusion... durring the days of the revolutionary war it made sense that a militia could overthrow a tyrannical government... but how about now?

some farmers from Idaho aren't going to be able to take on tanks, jets, nuclear arms, and all other manner of modern warfare ... the idea thta this is possible is an illusion...

UNLESS we open up all arms.. so that I, as a private citizen could own nuclear weapons, fighter jets, etc...

and do we really want that? do we really want cult leaders like Warren Jeffs with their finger on a big red "end the world" button?

the original purpose of the 2nd amendment is moot... it no longer exists, it is no longer reasonable...

we can make it reasonable again, but that would basically mean utter chaos and destruction, as well as wealth disparity issues as the wealthy could buy up tanks, and jets, that the poor could not...

so the rule only exists now for self protection, and the guns on the market now go WAY beyond our needs for that

I am fine with gun ownership, but we need MUCH stricter regulation IMO... especially better background checks
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Well, you could argue we are currently at war with this upcoming election and the Star player right now is Trump, who really is underneath it all, Palpatine. :msrs:
the best line from the Donald Drumph character assassination video

"...when he’s sworn in as president on January 20, 2017, on that day, his opinions are going to matter. And you will remember that date, because it’s the one that time travelers from the future will come back to to try and stop the whole thing from happening.” - John Oliver
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
How many wars were won without ground troops? You would be surprised at just how much power a large group of civilians can be when armed. I'm contrast, just how defenseless they are when they are not armed. Can you toe for toe with with an army? No, but I doubt that too many of our military members would follow orders to protect corrupt politicians. During world war 2, Japan understood that attacking out mainland would be disastrous. They understood that an enormous percentage of civilian homes were armed. The 2nd amendment still restrains government. Do you think they are more or less likely to go against the will of the people when they have no firearms?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
Not at all surprising if you've been remotely following the delegate counts, but it's worth noting that after last night it is now officially impossible for anyone other than Trump to outright win the Republican nomination by the convention.

I'm not even sure if it is still possible to reach a contested convention at this point, the math isn't looking all that good. To many people messed around for too long tricking themselves into believing it was possible to beat Trump without going to a contested convention. Advertising money needs to be put behind Kasich in places where he would do well against Trump, don't waste all of it on Cruz in places he won't do well in.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
How many wars were won without ground troops? You would be surprised at just how much power a large group of civilians can be when armed. I'm contrast, just how defenseless they are when they are not armed. Can you toe for toe with with an army? No, but I doubt that too many of our military members would follow orders to protect corrupt politicians. During world war 2, Japan understood that attacking out mainland would be disastrous. They understood that an enormous percentage of civilian homes were armed. The 2nd amendment still restrains government. Do you think they are more or less likely to go against the will of the people when they have no firearms?

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
well, we already have corrupt politicians, and have for decades... so i guess the military wont rise up against their government
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
How badly "anger" and hate clouds the mind will always out stand me. I wish people would realize that anger is not a legitimate excuse for acting foolishly.
 
The only way to build up the Republican party is to first blow it up. This is a good thing in the long run, a tragedy atm.

I think I'm gonna have to find myself a 3rd party candidate to vote for. Trumo has just turned into an uber nutjob recently and I cant co-sign that crook Clinton.
 
Top