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

atheists do not believe in a mythical god, therefore, the rules that come from a mythical god should not apply to people that do not believe in that mythical god.....that's it...the whole shebang...the entire philosophy of the atheist...no other credo, writings, books, rules, regulations, orders, etc...nada, none, no more.

originally posted by: jimmyx
atheists do not believe in a mythical god, therefore, the rules that come from a mythical god should not apply to people that do not believe in that mythical god.....that's it...the whole shebang...the entire philosophy of the atheist...no other credo, writings, books, rules, regulations, orders, etc...nada, none, no more.

No laws in government should come from a mythical god at all. If someone wants to rule themselves by whatever religion tells them, have at it, but the law must be secular to maintain a free society.

a reply to: NavyDoc

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

Are you saying he doesn't have an audience? It sure looks like he does acording to Youtube but I could be wrong and those are all comments from him with dummy accounts.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NavyDoc

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

Are you saying he doesn't have an audience? It sure looks like he does acording to Youtube but I could be wrong and those are all comments from him with dummy accounts.

And "audience" does neither imply a position of authority in an particular political organization nor a large following and it's a bit illogical to extrapolate that from his youtube hits, yes?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You're looking at one. Or... typing with one. I am a progressive, but I want a smaller government. Maybe not in the same areas that you would like it to shrink, but I want the government OUT of our personal business, out of the rest of the world's business and to take care of things here at home, as they should.

Would that be Social, Economic, or Religious ?

[ Just thinking outloud ]

Trying to digest the concept.

a reply to: NavyDoc

ya know there is a state that if you have a miscarriage while you are on a drug that may cause injury to the fetus (doesn't matter if that drug was perscribed) you can be imprisoned?
so what if the pregnant lady has a medical problem that requires medication to keep functional?
is she really supposed to stop the meds for the sake of the baby? really??
if so then who's rights held more weight???

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

ya know there is a state that if you have a miscarriage while you are on a drug that may cause injury to the fetus (doesn't matter if that drug was perscribed) you can be imprisoned?
so what if the pregnant lady has a medical problem that requires medication to keep functional?
is she really supposed to stop the meds for the sake of the baby? really??
if so then who's rights held more weight???

I thought I was clear--every individual has the right to self defense and in secular law, that is one situation where one individual can clearly take the life of another. Thus, in the cases you mention above, abortion (the act of killing another person, if that indeed represents another person) would be justified under our concepts of when killing is justified.

originally posted by: jimmyx
atheists do not believe in a mythical god, therefore, the rules that come from a mythical god should not apply to people that do not believe in that mythical god.....that's it...the whole shebang...the entire philosophy of the atheist...no other credo, writings, books, rules, regulations, orders, etc...nada, none, no more.

Can I ask where you got this... remarkable... statement????

a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh sorry I didn't realize you were being seriouse when you asked about the authority part.

I think the title of Pastor gives him a certain position of authority. I may be wrong but in the christian religion you can't get that title by simply asking for it. I could be wrong on that. It could be like FSM religion and you can simply pay for it.

I am pretty sure I have heard of people being striped of the title again I could be wrong. Itcould be those titles once you get them can never be taken away I don't know.

Anyway I wasn't refering to youtube hits I was refering to thecomments from people expousing support of his message though like I said that could be his dummy accounts but I think that is unlikely.

originally posted by: beezzer

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.

It doesn't matter what you think. You want to legislate laws that enforce what you think, thus taking away already established rights of others, who don't think like you do.

You want to make criminals of those who would do something you consider is wrong, while criticizing those who want to criminalize what someone else considers is wrong.

You are okay with promoting laws that take away the rights of living, breathing people, in order to endow rights on potential and/or fictitious people.

You want the government expanded to protect your "considerations" at the expense of those who don't share those considerations, because you believe that your beliefs are right. I don't see how that's any different than the preacher in the OP!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh sorry I didn't realize you were being seriouse when you asked about the authority part.

I think the title of Pastor gives him a certain position of authority. I may be wrong but in the christian religion you can't get that title by simply asking for it. I could be wrong on that. It could be like FSM religion and you can simply pay for it.

I am pretty sure I have heard of people being striped of the title again I could be wrong. Itcould be those titles once you get them can never be taken away I don't know.

Anyway I wasn't refering to youtube hits I was refering to thecomments from people expousing support of his message though like I said that could be his dummy accounts but I think that is unlikely.

It is my understanding that in the incredibly varied and diverse group of those who call themselves Christians, many people can and do just call themselves "pastor" without any formal training or certification. In the big denominations, one definitely has to undergo a process to be ordained in that denomination but often, those who set themselves a little church or newsletter give themselves that title. That he calls himself one is not an indication that he has any authority or certification at all.

a reply to: windword

. . . . aaaand you want to promote laws that deny rights to unborn people. You want to promote laws that allow for the killing of unborn people.

See how that works?

originally posted by: beezzer
The difference is, I consider an unborn person, a person who simply isn't born yet.

That's fine. That's what YOU consider an unborn. Behave that way in your life. Exercise your personal freedom to treat it as such. Forcing others to behave according to your beliefs is what people have a problem with. Which is what the preacher in the OP is trying to do - force his personal beliefs through law.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Where is the freedom of association? Where is the freedom to hang out with people you want to hang out with?

People don't "hang out" with or join associations with all of their customers. The Freedom of Association argument does not apply.

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?

Neither businesses NOR people ALWAYS have freedom of choice. You cannot choose to kill your neighbor, steal from someone or drive as fast as you want. Laws are necessary in a free society.

You say that the state must punish a business who wants to select it's clientele because it harms a person,

That's not what I say.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

. . . . aaaand you want to promote laws that deny rights to unborn people. You want to promote laws that allow for the killing of unborn people.

See how that works?

There are no laws that dictate that the unborn are people. On the contrary, the Constitution clearly states that rights are bestowed on those who are born. Only in your imagination is a fertilized egg, an embryo or a fetus a person.

You want new laws written to redefine what a person is. Then, you want to take away rights of people who already were considered "persons" and give them to potential and fictitious persons.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Where is the freedom of association? Where is the freedom to hang out with people you want to hang out with?

People don't "hang out" with or join associations with all of their customers. The Freedom of Association argument does not apply.

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?

Neither businesses NOR people ALWAYS have freedom of choice. You cannot choose to kill your neighbor, steal from someone or drive as fast as you want. Laws are necessary in a free society.

You say that the state must punish a business who wants to select it's clientele because it harms a person,

That's not what I say.

Business is association. Freedom of association does indeed apply.

Again, you use rather odd examples. Killing, cheating, stealing all harm another fellow citizen and thus are intrinsically wrong. Not wanting to do business with someone unless you are the only game in town, does not harm someone.

Yes you do say that--when you compare it to killing and stealing that's exactly what you imply.

Still trolling around to try and find the wackiest Christian out there huh? Meanwhile we have Muslims killing hundreds by the day! But this pastor guy, he's really dangerous right? Wow.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
The difference is, I consider an unborn person, a person who simply isn't born yet.

That's fine. That's what YOU consider an unborn. Behave that way in your life. Exercise your personal freedom to treat it as such. Forcing others to behave according to your beliefs is what people have a problem with. Which is what the preacher in the OP is trying to do - force his personal beliefs through law.

So if the government makes a law, using the electroencephalogram and the criteria we currently use to determine human life at the end of life, that provides that an unborn child is indeed a living human with all of the rights thereof as determined by science and not religion, would you be okay with that?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Still trolling around to try and find the wackiest Christian out there huh? Meanwhile we have Muslims killing hundreds by the day! But this pastor guy, he's really dangerous right? Wow.

You aren't worried by what this nutcase believes?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

. . . . aaaand you want to promote laws that deny rights to unborn people.

The unborn don't have rights to deny. You want to GIVE them rights - and I understand that. But to give them rights would deny the rights of the woman.