Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
504 days ago.
by burningdownthehouse
Tinfoilhat
#1

There is no movement in the United States to kill people in the name of second amendment rights but there is a movement that has murdered 1,200,000 children in the name of women's rights

The silver tongued talking heads on the magic living room box would have us believe that the country is in an uproar over the alleged murders of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, CT. An investigation is still pending. But the allegations are flying. Generally speaking, the anti-constitutionalists who don't own guns, have never fired guns and certainly have limited ability to identify them, would be willing to take away one of our most important constitutional right because they believe it would make them more "safe". None of the gun violence in America has been committed in the name of gun rights. Also, keep in mind, these anti-constitutionalists generally are of the same demographic that also believes that murdering 1,200,000 American children in 2012 in the name of women's rights is acceptable.

 
 

Member Comments

“I dont wish to control anyone nor tell them who they can do what with, but the two just are not and never will be the same.”

In the eyes of the law, they are the same thing. When a man and a woman enter into a “marriage” contract, they receive legal considerations that are not bestowed upon 2 people of the same gender living in the same circumstances. That is unconstitutional.

“I cant rightly say that without Christianity western civilization would have gotten to were it has.”

I would think that ancient Rome and Greece played more of a role than Christianity but then that’s just my opinion.

“If you read the writings of our founders, you will find they were INDEED religious people.”

This is why the vast majority OPPOSED comingling of religion and government.

Posted 539 days ago.

mythravere

You know its not an easy thing protecting someones beliefs. On one hand you want them to be able to express themselves as they wish and to protect them from unwanted influences and actions.

But a bill like that could be used as a means of discrimination against others.

If someone made a religious declaration stating pretty much anything they wanted that bill would protect them.

What we need is a leave each other the heck alone bill!

Posted 540 days ago.

Tiredofit

One thing you must remember, never confuse organized religion with my belief in GOD. The two are not the same. Religions are run by man, and as such are flawed themselves. Faith is never flawed although sometimes I am.

Posted 540 days ago.

RANDOM21

Research "the 45 stated goals of Communism in the US" published in 1963, a very pivotal year when one thinks about it.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

I wont disagree with that. But some it seems to want this country to only be for a certain group. Granted I say that because of what I perceive. And I as human I may be in error.

I wonder what would happen to people's perception if the news was nonexistent for a whole month? I mean no media to keep the flames stoked if you will.

I think people would be calmer.

Posted 540 days ago.

Tiredofit

If you read the writings of our founders, you will find they were INDEED religious people. Not to say that they were all Christian, but almost without exception, they all referece GOD or the Creator quite often in thier writings. You are free to practice or NOT practice whatever you want to as far as I know.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

I mean who gets angry when the issue of religious texts etc is displayed in public schools and should be taken down? In regard to the separation of church and state.

And look at the Pledge of Allegiance. I personally have no issue with it. But I am sure some atheists don't like the idea that they have to give honor to something they don't believe in while expressing allegiance to their country.

Its interesting that religious folks dont want their institutions to cover birth control and cry that it is being forced on them. But yet non-believers and other religious beliefs have to give fealty to something they don't believe in.

But like every other time. I guess if I dont like it I am free to leave the country right?

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

On the other hand Christians (not all) are really insistent on seeing that Christian dogma is the only source that informs our laws and guides our society.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when it effects the personal freedom of others it can be.

Remember there is a large group of people in this country who yell that they want to take back "their" country. Implying that the folks who have "their" country have no rightful claim to it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who at least one of those groups are.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

Religion isn't being forced on people. But believers tend to imply that this is a Christian nation and that stepping outside of purview of Christian influence will lead to the destruction of this country.

So in a sense I am totally free to believe what I want as long as I keep it to myself and not try and guide my country according to my beliefs.

And I wouldn't say atheists are trying to force their beliefs on anyone but rather keep the government neutral in the matters of personal belief. Along with trying to keep the government from putting laws on the books that cater to the personal beliefs of the religious.

In other words atheists are trying to stop the government from playing favorites.

Posted 540 days ago.

Tiredofit

Where do you see relgion being forced on anyone??? Are Christians engaging in lawsuits to force crosses to be displayed or rather are Atheists the ones that are forcing thier views on us through the courts.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

I must say though after doing a little reading dwarfism isn't totally a genetic defect.

Correction.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

Now as for religion. I dont think one person would disagree with me that in the past it essentially represented a common point of interest among people of this nation.

Religion has way of keeping people in line so to speak.

Without it some people I feel have nothing from keeping their behavior in check.

But the BIG question is how does one restore the social calming effect religion has without forcing it on people?

I will say that from a historical standpoint I cant rightly say that without Christianity western civilization would have gotten to were it has.

I think Christianity made possible a level of civil organization that built the western world.

Without that influence can we continue to maintain what we have.

Can a different type of civil organization take its place and continue the advancement of western civilization?

Posted 540 days ago.

Tiredofit

There is no doubt, while far from perfect, the union of a man and woman and subsequent production and rearing of children is what makes a society function and prosper. To elevate any other type of relationship to that status is foolish and counter to a healthy and functional scoiety. I dont wish to control anyone nor tell them who they can do what with, but the two just are not and never will be the same.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

But as of late I have been considering the implications of certain traits being degraded in society that have historically had a hand in gluing society together.

Those traits being the family unit and religion.

As far as homosexual relationships being conducive to a strong family environment I feel they can. But I think that it may significantly alter how a family works in unforeseen ways.

But the strength of the family has been degraded even without homosexual considerations being applied to the issue.

I think that issue is indeed a pressing one.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

Ithink brings up good points to consider. As does everyone else.

My position on this issue comes from not wanting to deny people what they choose for themselves. I feel that when the minority groups rights are protected and honored then the protection of my beliefs are strengthened in turn.

Posted 540 days ago.

mythravere

Now I dont profess to all know the genetic downsides to inbreeding but I was trying to point out that we don't harbor those feelings toward people with dwarfism.

It all comes down to what is socially acceptable.

I must say though after doing a little reading dwarfism is totally a genetic defect. There are other causes. Plus inbreeding can produce positive traits in some cases.

Posted 540 days ago.

Tiredofit

MYTH SAYS As I stated brother and sister etc relationships have serious issues attached to them that has nothing to do with any moral quandary. Inbreeding can introduce genetic defects into the offspring. THEN MYTH SAID Dwarfism is a genetic defect. Should we disallow little people from having children? Sounds like you are on both sides of the issue.

I sorta thought the CAP with MYTH SAYS would be enough of a clue,

Posted 540 days ago.

Tiredofit

Maybe only blue eyed and blonde people should have that privlige????? I think that has been tried

Posted 540 days ago.

harryanderson

It certainly scares me, Tiredofit.

Posted 540 days ago.

harryanderson

When quoting somebody, I like to use quotation marks. It avoids confusion.

Posted 540 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or