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.

 

Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm just considering the rights and life of the unborn child. Not an issue I'm likely to waiver on.


I don't think you should waver. It's your opinion and you feel strongly about it. But as an opinion, it should apply only to you, not everyone in the country. Just as ANY personal belief should apply only to the person with that belief. Pushing one's beliefs is what gets people in trouble.

Unborn children don't have legal rights.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

And you SAY you believe in smaller government, personal responsibility, personal freedoms - except when it comes to a pregnant woman. Then you want the government to step in, dictate her personal responsibility, and take away her freedom to do with her own body what she sees fit.



I'm just considering the rights and life of the unborn child. Not an issue I'm likely to waiver on.


Just as gay marriage is issue that some Christians are not likely to waiver on, as well. You just cherry pick your issues, however you're still promoting a Christian morality enforced by government intrusion and laws that take away personal freedoms. You are perfectly willing to use the government to regulate and enforce laws that you agree with, even if they take established rights away from real live, living breathing people, to benefit potential people.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RedParrotHead

Completely off topic: You're avatar is the mightiest of all avatars!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

it seems to me that his own words prove that this isn't a christian nation!

" A Christian Foreign Policy would start with the premise that in a fallen world many nations will be ruled, controlled and motivated by sin."

can anyone honestly tell me that our elected reps are motivated by what is best for the country and not which lobbyist is offering the most money?

"They would lie, fudge, prevaricate and twist the truth in a myriad of ways - without shame even after being caught. In fact they would try to turn it around and blame the ones exposing their lies as "haters" attacking them."

sound familiar anyone. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction I tell ya!!!
and let's not forget the if you ain't with us your against us line!

and well

"Any nation that refused to sign a treaty with such built-in protections would not be negotiated with. Instead it would be viewed and treated as a hostile enemy needing to be contained as the Soviet Union was met with a policy of containment during the Cold War. The containment would be enforced by iron-fisted military power and an instant willingness to use it at a moment's notice. Sin can't be negotiated with, only restrained and contained, thus only a policy accepting of reality would have any chance of success."

yep I see alot of "tolerance" there!!!
wonder where he thinks the money is coming for all his iron fists??



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

it seems to me that his own words prove that this isn't a christian nation!

" A Christian Foreign Policy would start with the premise that in a fallen world many nations will be ruled, controlled and motivated by sin."

can anyone honestly tell me that our elected reps are motivated by what is best for the country and not which lobbyist is offering the most money?

"They would lie, fudge, prevaricate and twist the truth in a myriad of ways - without shame even after being caught. In fact they would try to turn it around and blame the ones exposing their lies as "haters" attacking them."

sound familiar anyone. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction I tell ya!!!
and let's not forget the if you ain't with us your against us line!

and well

"Any nation that refused to sign a treaty with such built-in protections would not be negotiated with. Instead it would be viewed and treated as a hostile enemy needing to be contained as the Soviet Union was met with a policy of containment during the Cold War. The containment would be enforced by iron-fisted military power and an instant willingness to use it at a moment's notice. Sin can't be negotiated with, only restrained and contained, thus only a policy accepting of reality would have any chance of success."

yep I see alot of "tolerance" there!!!
wonder where he thinks the money is coming for all his iron fists??















To your last sentence: he's not thinking, that's one of his major problems. His premise is so out there, so loony, that one has to wonder if this is some sort of attempt at trolling.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Just as gay marriage is issue that some Christians are not likely to waiver on, as well. You just cherry pick your issues, however you're still promoting a Christian morality enforced by government intrusion and laws that take away personal freedoms. You are perfectly willing to use the government to regulate and enforce laws that you agree with, even if they take established rights away from real live, living breathing people, to benefit potential people.


Interesting that you used the term, "cherry pick".

Are you insinuating that I have to believe in a certain way?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   


To your last sentence: he's not thinking, that's one of his major problems. His premise is so out there, so loony, that one has to wonder if this is some sort of attempt at trolling.
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'd prefer to believe that instead of thinking that he might actually be preaching it to a congregation that actually takes it seriously!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: windword

Just as gay marriage is issue that some Christians are not likely to waiver on, as well. You just cherry pick your issues, however you're still promoting a Christian morality enforced by government intrusion and laws that take away personal freedoms. You are perfectly willing to use the government to regulate and enforce laws that you agree with, even if they take established rights away from real live, living breathing people, to benefit potential people.


Interesting that you used the term, "cherry pick".

Are you insinuating that I have to believe in a certain way?


Some people are very concrete thinkers and believe that a Christian "must" believe a certain way and an atheist "must" hold certain opinions. There are as many ways of looking at the world as there are people looking at it, IMHO.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar



To your last sentence: he's not thinking, that's one of his major problems. His premise is so out there, so loony, that one has to wonder if this is some sort of attempt at trolling.
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'd prefer to believe that instead of thinking that he might actually be preaching it to a congregation that actually takes it seriously!





I hope not. That more than one person think that way would indeed be disturbing, both from the aspect that they would have to be stupid as well as blind in addition to fanatical. OTOH, if he has a following as Fred Phelps did, they are most likely a very tiny handful of people.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


Yes, you cherry picked a righteous indignation to a woman's right to choose, and you think it's okay to eliminate or limit a woman's right to access those choices, that you disapprove of, through government intrusion and law enforcement; ie expanded government presence in the personal and sexual choices of one group, but you criticize those who want to do the very same thing, when it comes to sexual orientation and limit or eliminate the personal and sexual choices of another group.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
OTOH, I see so many people who say they are for "personal choice" when it comes to abortion, but not to own a gun or eat meat or refuse to work or serve someone part of a protected class--personal choices all--


If an INDIVIDUAL refuses to serve someone, it's a personal freedom. But a business isn't an individual. If businesses can run themselves however the owner (a person) sees fit, instead of obeying business law, then restaurants could grind up roaches and put them in your hamburger. Personal freedom, right? WRONG. A business is not a person and must obey business law to be permitted to serve the public.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer


Yes, you cherry picked a righteous indignation to a woman's right to choose, and you think it's okay to eliminate or limit a woman's right to access those choices, that you disapprove of, through government intrusion and law enforcement; ie expanded government presence in the personal and sexual choices of one group, but you criticize those who want to do the very same thing, when it comes to sexual orientation and limit or eliminate the personal and sexual choices of another group.


The difference is, I consider an unborn person, a person who simply isn't born yet.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

DON'T do it. ITS a comedy that isn't funny, a ranting nut job who picked a paycheck so he could spew his garbage.
HE doesn't help anyone out.


I dipped in briefly and then the crazy got too much for me. The man's a fruitcake. All he seems to do is hate and rant about things. He certainly seems to think that Democrats are traitors somehow because: lies, or something.

His views on the media - of which I am a member - are appalling. I quote: "Point number one: don’t try to evangelize reporters, or sway them, or reason with them, or appeal to their ‘better natures’. They have none. (Trying to evangelize a reporter is like trying to teach a pig to fly; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Jesus Himself didn’t waste any time on the Pharisees. He only got one convert, Nicodemus, and even he had to hide it to stay out of trouble. If you insist on evangelizing reporters I won’t try to stop you and if you actually get one I’ll be the first to stand up and applaud, but my job in the Kingdom isn’t evangelism and I’m guessing that anyone this book appeals to won’t be an evangelist either.) The more time you spend with reporters trying to get them to see your point of view, the more time they’ll have to hit you with questions designed to throw you off base and provoke you into saying something you didn’t mean or intend to say. Then they’ll use it against before you can so much as spit. They can’t be reasoned with because they see themselves as advocates for their point of view. They’ll be trying to change your mind or destroy you or both. You can’t reason with someone like that. And anyone who belongs to Satan doesn’t have a better nature. By definition the only people who actually have a better nature are those who are saved, and the better nature is the Holy Spirit living within them. "
His website really has made me feel ill.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
OTOH, I see so many people who say they are for "personal choice" when it comes to abortion, but not to own a gun or eat meat or refuse to work or serve someone part of a protected class--personal choices all--


If an INDIVIDUAL refuses to serve someone, it's a personal freedom. But a business isn't an individual. If businesses can run themselves however the owner (a person) sees fit, instead of obeying business law, then restaurants could grind up roaches and put them in your hamburger. Personal freedom, right? WRONG. A business is not a person and must obey business law to be permitted to serve the public.


Bit of a difference between fraud and adulterating a product and poisoning a person and a simple "sorry don't want to do business with you" isn't there?

Where is the freedom of association? Where is the freedom to hang out with people you want to hang out with? Or, as I put it, some choices are agreeable to you and some choices you don't like must be squashed by the power of the federal government. Where is the freedom of choice there?

You say that the state must punish a business who wants to select it's clientele because it harms a person, no "my business my rules" is allowed but don't think the state should be in the business of telling a woman she cannot harm another person because "her body, her rules." That is a very hypocritical position.

Either an individual has autonomy in their decision making process or they do not. The state should be about preventing real harm to another individual and establishing a system of neutral courts so that citizens can hash out their differences, not dictate every life decision to everyone.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
By the way, one thing really stood out. This nutcase is being funded by someone. There's an archive section on his nauseating website. The earliest recordings go back to 2013 and are fairly crude - the man stands in front of a plain background and just rants. The newer ones from this year - including the insane rant about making gay people do ten years in prison breaking rocks - are more sophisticated. They have CGI backgrounds and apparent multiple camera angles. This lunatic is being funded by someone. People believe his rants?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
By the way, one thing really stood out. This nutcase is being funded by someone. There's an archive section on his nauseating website. The earliest recordings go back to 2013 and are fairly crude - the man stands in front of a plain background and just rants. The newer ones from this year - including the insane rant about making gay people do ten years in prison breaking rocks - are more sophisticated. They have CGI backgrounds and apparent multiple camera angles. This lunatic is being funded by someone. People believe his rants?


It could be. OTOH, with improvements of technology, videos are getting more and more sophisticated looking even if it's a cheap set up in your basement.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




Any democrat among the average people who really believe this represents the average republican, doesn't need to be voting, anyway. They need to see a doctor. This is nothing more than a divisionary tactic.


I am not a D or R and I agree he is not what I would call an average republican however he is a person that holds some authoritative position that is in that party.

If he was just some nut job standing in his lawn spewing such nonsense it would be a non issue unfortunately he is representative of a portion of society which has found a home in one party. That is why this is disconcerting.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

or he could be someone who just wants to give christians a bad image who knows
but if the guy actually believes this way he's a fruitcake that needs to be locked up in a mental institution for a few years

regarding the abortion discussion that is going on
the biggest mistake that the right makes in this discussion in my opinion is that they seem to constantly diminish any dangers that a women might encounter with a pregnancy. thus giving me the idea that we need to make abortion a right for all since any danger to the women will not be taken seriously
and I am sorry but the rights of the mother at least in some cases needs to have more weight than the rights of the unborm. and when they start limiting access to birth control (to protect the rights of the unborn) they are way off base!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Klassified




Any democrat among the average people who really believe this represents the average republican, doesn't need to be voting, anyway. They need to see a doctor. This is nothing more than a divisionary tactic.


I am not a D or R and I agree he is not what I would call an average republican however he is a person that holds some authoritative position that is in that party.

If he was just some nut job standing in his lawn spewing such nonsense it would be a non issue unfortunately he is representative of a portion of society which has found a home in one party. That is why this is disconcerting.


What position of authority? How do we know he has an audience at all?

I disagree that this sort of position has a home in one party. Fred Phelps was a lifelong Democrat. Jeremiah Wright and his hateful screeds are part of the Democratic party. This sort of animus is not limited to one party.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

or he could be someone who just wants to give christians a bad image who knows
but if the guy actually believes this way he's a fruitcake that needs to be locked up in a mental institution for a few years

regarding the abortion discussion that is going on
the biggest mistake that the right makes in this discussion in my opinion is that they seem to constantly diminish any dangers that a women might encounter with a pregnancy. thus giving me the idea that we need to make abortion a right for all since any danger to the women will not be taken seriously
and I am sorry but the rights of the mother at least in some cases needs to have more weight than the rights of the unborm. and when they start limiting access to birth control (to protect the rights of the unborn) they are way off base!



Birth control is different. Who has limited access to birth control? The debates, RE birth control, are really centered around mandated funding and that is really the underlying issue. I'm a big birth control proponent, but I'm not a mandated funding proponent.

This is the rub, RE abortion. If, and I emphasize the IF, the unborn is another person, when does one person have the right to kill another? Self defense, obviously is one reason I can see.
edit on 26-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join