It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

page: 30
53
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Aaaawwwww did the widdle progressive get his widddle feewings hurt by a little truth? So sorry. By the way, I'm an atheist, so about 99.9999% of your silly rant missed the mark entirely.


I don't know, I've been too busy laughing at your posts to notice. I must have missed that truth you're talking about too cause all I keep reading is a bunch of BS. Doesn't matter if you're an Atheist or not either. That joke wasn't just about you, you ego maniac. It was satire. You know, a joke. Kinda like 99.9999% of what you say.




Believe it or not, there are many atheists who reject big government and nanny statists and think people should be left alone to believe as they please without being coerced to do the opposite by big brother and that foolish people who demand big government to "get those evil Christians" actually create power and precedent to hurt themselves but they can't see it due to the hatred they hold.


Yeah I'm familiar with them. It's too bad those same people seem to love removing themselves from following the rules without allowing others the same choice. I can tell by your argument with me that you don't even know where I stand on this issue either. But go ahead and keep making accusations about me because I find them amusing. Plus it gives me more material.



Edited to add, I'm from Michigan, so no, the drawl misses too. You love to embrace stereotypes. I wonder if you find stereotypes that say Hispanics are lazy too?


You mean the stereotypes you embrace about "Leftists", "Progressives", "Liberals" and the like???

Hey man, those are your words about "Lazy Hispanics" not mine. You said it, you own it!!




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.
i own a business. I produce food. No matter any court ruling, i would still help feed you. To me, that's common sense


No thanks....

I have been following this thread and your posts...

Your obvious hatred of anything liberal, progressive or outside of your theological box would cause me to expect it might be tainted. I'll just mosey on down to the 7/11 and purchase a slim jim and a 6 of Tecate. So far 7/11 hasn't shown a propensity to discriminate against women or people of color.

To be perfectly honest; I have a very hard time trusting or believing anyone with discriminatory agenda.
this is called projecting and transference. You judge me not how well you know my flesh and its shortcomings. You judge me how well you know your own flesh and your shortcomings. I am known as trustworthy due to my actions. I discriminate to no one. But i do live by a standard that is above my own, a moral covenant. I fall short often yet the higher ideals itry and live my life by are just that, higher. If i made stuff up as i go to satisfy my lower self i would end up....well, like you, always equating everything to base instincts and my own faulty reasoning, to the point in need of demonizing others who simply have differing opinions. You see, you told us alot more about you thanyou ever could of me. Even your appeal to what you think of food. I for one cannot call anything in711 food. I sat food, you say processed imitation food product. I cannot evendrink a beer out of 711. Too many local micro breweries making quality beer that actually is food.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




You mention the 14th Amendment, but the business owner has rights under the 1st Amendment. Whose rights are more important than the other person's rights?


Nobody's rights are more important. The 14th Amendment guarantees "Equal Protection".


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


These women, albeit temporary, have been, and are currently being, denied equal protection of the law.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Until you stated at the end you were saying it to be funny, it was not funny. But now its hilarious. I picture you saying it in a southern drawl though, not me. lol, hilarious. What a witty person, great sense of humor, lol....great stuff.a reply to: mOjOm



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The ACA and the SCOTUS ruling are Federal Law.

The 14th may not apply to Hobby Lobby.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sigh. Please READ my posts.

SCOTUS squarely put the onus of providing the stuff that Hobby Lobby won't provide on the government, ie. the tax payer. The government is responsible for making sure these women have equal protection under the law! Right now, these women don't have it!

See?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

NOPE.

All I see is the usual regressive, narrow, rigid, closed-minded, willfully blind, raging bias.

NavyDoc is accurate.

There's no loss of rights just because a SUBSIDY is not forced on everyone.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?


How in the holy hell can I have any influence of what other business owners do or chose to be their customers.
It's the SCOTUS that has taken the corporate personhood to an obscene level. Not me.


Really? Would you vote for or against various anti discrimination laws? Do you support or not support politicians who would tell your fellow business owners what to do or not to do?

Certainly you effect what your other business owners do every time you step inside that voting booth.


I would vote against any laws that restrict free enterprise. However I realize that voting is pure BS and only works on the micro local level. I still vote in all elections and work for my Libertarian party at every opportunity. I still have no illusions that fascism is right around the corner all wrapped in the flag holding a Bible. TY S. Lewis.


Okay. I'm confused. You say you are a libertarian but support religious people to be forced by government to do things and cannot see the fascism right here, right now, by the progressive left but worry about a created bugaboo?

ETA: and you didn't answer the question. Do you support laws that tell business who they may or may not serve. As a libertarian certainly you must agree with a bakery being legally allowed not to sell wedding cakes to gays, right?


I agree you are confused...

Facism has historically come from the Right.


www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Trying to pigeon hole me is a fools errand. And putting words in my mouth by what your interpretation is of my post is foolhardy. I have already been marginalized as a "people like you" and am completely satisfied with that designation, even though I understand it's derogatory nature. Yes I do support businesses not serving anyone they chose regardless of the circumstances. I also support gays or anyone else taking retaliation against businesses they think discriminate against them. That's Libertarianism to me. Not some tightassed dogmatic version like the Republicans masquerading as the TParty, totally in love with Rush and Hannity. Using the Limbaugh letter is so lame as is using the talking points in Coulters "How to talk to a Liberal" It's easy to spot

edit on 9-7-2014 by olaru12 because: xxoo

edit on 9-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Yep. It also seems to me that SCOTUS has also disenfranchised other's religious beliefs, who also may own closely held corporations, by ruling the "religious" objection only extends to the contraception mandate and excludes, say, a Scientologist business owner who wants to refuse to pay for depression medication.


I thought their decision meant that any other religious exclusion would have to be decided on its own merits, whether it involved another religion or the same religion. My understanding was that they didn't want their decision interpreted too broadly . . . regardless of the specific religion.

Wouldn't a Christian organization have to go to court again if they wanted to deny depression medication coverage to their employees? Or are you saying that now, due to the SCOTUS decision, Christians can deny depression medication coverage but muslims or scientologists can't? That Christians can deny coverage for these abortafacients but muslims and scientologists can't?


Please correct me if I'm wrong.


edit on 9-7-2014 by imwilliam because: formatting



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Sigh. Please READ my posts.

SCOTUS squarely put the onus of providing the stuff that Hobby Lobby won't provide on the government, ie. the tax payer. The government is responsible for making sure these women have equal protection under the law! Right now, these women don't have it!

See?



[ long deep inhale......fast loud exhale ]



With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage. The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations



And maybe this ??
Hobby Lobby Decision Has Limited Impact in California


They buy you books they send to school and still .............



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Arguing/debating over the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics.

Someone may win...

But you're all still retarded.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: manna2
Until you stated at the end you were saying it to be funny, it was not funny. But now its hilarious. I picture you saying it in a southern drawl though, not me. lol, hilarious. What a witty person, great sense of humor, lol....great stuff.a reply to: mOjOm



This whole conversation started from a joke about the Murlock and Eloy from "Time Machine". How anyone could possibly not understand it as a joke is beyond me. It's just gotten more elaborate as time goes on. Now I admit it's gotten much more intense and if someone starts off reading from the middle I can see how they may not understand I'm joking. Although I'm laying it on pretty thick which should be a clue that what I'm saying is obviously satire and over the top. I actually find it funny that from that simple joke it's gotten so extreme, but I'll keep playing as long as he does.

I have a horrible southern drawl to BTW. But it is funnier like that for some reason. I don't mean to offend anyone either and unless anyone thinks of themselves as a stereotype it shouldn't. In fact it's my over exaggeration of certain stereotypes that should imply that.

But just so everyone knows, those posts are satire and are intentionally over the top in their absurd language. They do reflect the truth to some degree, but it's reflected of a very distorted mirror.

Thanx for pointing that out though manna. It's hard to tell sometimes how things come across when typed rather than spoken.
edit on 9-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


Secondly this whole #ing entire thread is about court decisions and coverage and boundaries and overreach. You can't separate them from the subject.

Mmmm. No, not really. It's about the New Apostolic Reformation and the Seven Mountain Dominionists who want to get (and have been) voted into legislature (whether state or federal) to push their Evangelical agenda on the rest of us.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?


How in the holy hell can I have any influence of what other business owners do or chose to be their customers.
It's the SCOTUS that has taken the corporate personhood to an obscene level. Not me.


Really? Would you vote for or against various anti discrimination laws? Do you support or not support politicians who would tell your fellow business owners what to do or not to do?

Certainly you effect what your other business owners do every time you step inside that voting booth.


I would vote against any laws that restrict free enterprise. However I realize that voting is pure BS and only works on the micro local level. I still vote in all elections and work for my Libertarian party at every opportunity. I still have no illusions that fascism is right around the corner all wrapped in the flag holding a Bible. TY S. Lewis.


Okay. I'm confused. You say you are a libertarian but support religious people to be forced by government to do things and cannot see the fascism right here, right now, by the progressive left but worry about a created bugaboo?

ETA: and you didn't answer the question. Do you support laws that tell business who they may or may not serve. As a libertarian certainly you must agree with a bakery being legally allowed not to sell wedding cakes to gays, right?


I agree you are confused...

Facism has historically come from the Right.


www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Trying to pigeon hole me is a fools errand. And putting words in my mouth by what your interpretation is of my post is foolhardy. I have already been marginalized as a "people like you" and am completely satisfied with that designation, even though I understand it's derogatory nature. Yes I do support businesses not serving anyone they chose regardless of the circumstances. I also support gays or anyone else taking retaliation against businesses they think discriminate against them. That's Libertarianism to me. Not some tightassed dogmatic version like the Republicans masquerading as the TParty, totally in love with Rush and Hannity. Using the Limbaugh letter is so lame as is using the talking points in Coulters "How to talk to a Liberal" It's easy to spot


Ah, you use the leftist Right/Left paradigm created by Stalin fanboys. The fascist were left given the embracement of national SOCIALISM.

Although you keep deflecting, which is a rather dishonest way of debating.

Speaking of deflecting, my position is true libertarianism--you can do what you want, let the free market decide. You, OTOH, seem to be pushing for government intervention and a hate and fear of theists that one cannot prove is a real threat to you. Which robs your pocket more, Christian fundies or leftist progressives?

LIke I asked and you failed to answer, should the state make laws that make discrimination against gays (or whomever) illegal? What is your stance?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: manna2


this is called projecting and transference.

LOL!!!!

Lol
Lol

"How would you know?"

*eyeroll*



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc


Secondly this whole #ing entire thread is about court decisions and coverage and boundaries and overreach. You can't separate them from the subject.

Mmmm. No, not really. It's about the New Apostolic Reformation and the Seven Mountain Dominionists who want to get (and have been) voted into legislature (whether state or federal) to push their Evangelical agenda on the rest of us.




And where is the evidence that is happening? The picking of my pocket and the restricting of my rights all seem to come from the progressive left. This, IMHO, is the greater threat.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

sigh.
Where is the evidence?

Doc, I don't know with what else to provide you.
It is obvious that these people are real, and serious, and real serious.

Have a good night.
(They exist, and are open about existing and their agenda.)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It's about the New Apostolic Reformation and the Seven Mountain Dominionists who want to get (and have been) voted into legislature (whether state or federal) to push their Evangelical agenda on the rest of us.



It would be interesting to see a list of those elected officials.

You know, for comparison purposes to see what laws they are writing or inserting language in to.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

I prefer a Colt or Ruger .22, or better still, a 38 special.

I could handle the 10mm, but the kickback would knock me sideways.


Don't worry, you'll be glad to have me get your back.

But regardless, since that is not going to happen - and to stay on-topic, I am (as I've said) relieved to know that intelligent members don't see the threat as being as clear and present a danger as I worry about. I appreciate being helped to de-escalate my alarm.





You could handle it. I appreciate and enjoy your free spirit nature. You are a good person, even if we do not agree on some things.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

Bachmann
Brownback
Perry
Palin (who later quit)
Gingrich (formerly elected)
Romney (formerly elected)
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz

sigh....


And here are some others:

We noted a while ago that Jim Garlow, who serves as Chairman of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership is a Seven Mountains advocate and close friend of Lou Engle, so it is no surprise to see him featured on the front page of Pray and A.C.T's website ... but it is surprising to see Gingrich's organization openly aligning itself with Engle's new organization - and it is even more surprising to see all of the other Religious Right leaders who have also climbed on board:

Jim Garlow, Skyline Church & Renewing American Leadership
Chuck Colson, Founder Prison Fellowship & BreakPoint
Che Ahn, Harvest International Ministry
Vonette Bright, Co-Founder, Campus Crusade for Christ, International
Bishop Keith Butler, Founding Pastor, Word of Faith International Christian Center
Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Jim Daly, President & CEO, Focus on the Family
Lou Engle, TheCall to Conscience, TheCall
Father Joseph Fessio, Editor in Chief, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage
Professor Robert George, Princeton University
Professor Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Jack Hayford, Founder and Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas & Host, The Mike Huckabee Show
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Church Coalition
Alveda King, Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Richard Land, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Ron Luce, Founder, Teen Mania & Battle Cry
Bishop Richard Malone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine)
Eva Muntean & Dolores Meehan, Co-Founders, West Coast Walk for Life, San Francisco
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James Robison, Life Outreach, International
Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Chuck Stetson, Let’s Strengthen Marriage Campaign


- See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org...
edit on 7/9/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join