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.

 

California 'Shoot the gays' initiative likely to be circulated

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

One thing I loath about those kinds of Christian-types is that they will trot-out the Bible to make some point that's dear to their hearts (or stokes their prejudices) --- like Leviticus 18 and 20 --- but ignore ALL the surrounding passages. You either follow Leviticus to the letter or you don't. It's not a 'one from column A, one from column B' kinda thing. But that's not the way they operate. 'Oh, no way I'm giving up my lobster but hell ya, kill the gays. Bible says so.' Uber-BS




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

On a personal level, you live the life as God dictates. That does not mean you want it in your government.

You are getting Christianity confused with Islam where the religion and government are often inseparable systems.

I sure as heck don't want faith forced because it can't be and works without faith are dead. That includes works compelled by government for any reason - secular or faith-based.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Actually, you should be asking the Jews why they don't live Levitical Law.

All Levitical Law means to a Christian is that it makes it clear that God does not condone homosexuality which means we ought not condone it. We are not bound to carrying out the letter of Levitical Law thanks to the New Testament.

The message I draw from this is that I can tolerate it, but I am not to accept it. I treat it the same way as I do other sexual sins. They aren't right either, but I hardly turn my back on a person for them. We all sin. We all fall short and we can all be forgiven.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ahhh the old Islam argument...


It may interest you to know that Islam grew because Muslims were willing to kill others who wouldn't let people believe whatever the hell they wanted...


Your religion grew by forcing people to believe in Christ and killing those who didn't...





To conflate the two is just RC mandated history lessons that derive from the small minds of "Saints"...
Sinners, rather!



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
This is crazy, insane and highly unconstitutional.

But haters gonna hate!

This is why I love non-PC freedom of speech. We can tell who the idiots and haters and bad people are!



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ketsuko

Ahhh the old Islam argument...


It may interest you to know that Islam grew because Muslims were willing to kill others who wouldn't let people believe whatever the hell they wanted...


Your religion grew by forcing people to believe in Christ and killing those who didn't...





To conflate the two is just RC mandated history lessons that derive from the small minds of "Saints"...
Sinners, rather!


You are talking about the same early Christianity that was fed to the lions by Romans ... yes? I fail to see where it had the power to spread itself by force.

Maybe you are talking about a different time period, one much later on after Constantine. But by then, early Christianity had spread itself by means other than the sword throughout much of the Roman Empire.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

If you say you wanna kick someone's arse that's between you and them and will amount to nothing unless someone presses charges.


If you say someone should kick someone else's arse at a gathering of likeminded but actually willing people you're inciting hatred...




It's not as complex as people make out.
It's a paranoid stance imo.


Nope. It's not. There are already specific codes in place that cover specific threats and inciting riots and even sedition. Where you want to go is to expand that to make speech you don't like illegal. In order to live in a free society, one has to be able to tolerate the occasional douche who says crappy things.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Now consider this...

If he were a Muslim, suggesting that California submit to ISIS and immediately execute all those who admit that they're Christian unless they convert to their warped beliefs, he would be in prison already.

Why is it okay in the USA for a Christian extremist to openly call for the execution of others, but not okay for an Islamist to do the same?

Really, I want to know how any American cannot see the hypocrisy of this. How does this work with your freedom of expression and freedom of opinion? How does this comply with your notions about religious freedom?

All of this should be criminal, anyone promoting murder should be classed as a criminal, no if's and no but's. If you are calling for others to be murdered you deserve to be charged with a crime.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The guy is a nutjob. His petition will not go far, will not be supported by even the most religious of the religious, and will not make it to law--not even close. He's just a crazy attention whore.


Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the Christians lately have we?
Tempe pastor remains unapologetic in his call for execution of gay people
You will find that other Christians especially of the Evangelical sect that would fully support killing people for being gay.


Great, you have a couple examples of the 2 billion Christians. That mean must it's the majority and very prevalent.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So what are you doing as a Christian to stop such activity? As according to the Muslim argument, the moderates are supposed to speak up and stop these fundamentalist crazies. Otherwise they implicitly condone the activity.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just referring to how they grew...

I'm not accusing you or any modern day christians of such behaviour and I apologise if it seemed so...




However, the Lions in the colosseum is questioned by a few people who have suggested the colosseum wasn't even built at the time of said martyrdom, and that the early stories were written hundreds of years after such accusations...


However part two, I wouldn't rule out that Romans mistreated Christians either, so I wouldn't put whatever is left of my credibility on the line endorsing the claim above, I have heard the arguments for and against though.




Overall I was speaking of forcing faith, which I guess I was kind of snide in response, because I don't believe a true believer would force anything into anyone...
No matter the faith in question.


My apologies.
edit on 19-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Just trying to show the hypocrisy of that particular rhetoric. Though I'm sure you realized that already.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The guy is a nutjob. His petition will not go far, will not be supported by even the most religious of the religious, and will not make it to law--not even close. He's just a crazy attention whore.



It would probably pass in Texas....or Kansas, maybe Idaho...


Nope. That's a bit of a stretch that is as bad as "the gays want to put us Christians in FEMA camps." As much as I disagree with the fundy crowd, they would be opposed to government sanctioned mass murder. It's right there in the 5th amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


There are several states currently passing (or having already passed) laws which are in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the US, placing the imagined right of "Christians" to dictate and discriminate against all others depending on their personal ignorance above the rights of all free citizens.

Christians and Republicans like to wave their Constitution and their Bible around when it suits them, but they then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I didn't say I want speech I don't like illegal...


People can say what they want...

I'm specifically taking about inciting hatred with a view to violent oppression.



If you already have those laws, then the premise of this "shoot the gays" initiative shouldn't even be allowed to be petitioned should it not?

Unless the law doesn't apply to such, in which case I refer you back to every post I've made so far on that specific topic.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The guy is a nutjob. His petition will not go far, will not be supported by even the most religious of the religious, and will not make it to law--not even close. He's just a crazy attention whore.


Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the Christians lately have we?
Tempe pastor remains unapologetic in his call for execution of gay people
You will find that other Christians especially of the Evangelical sect that would fully support killing people for being gay.


Great, you have a couple examples of the 2 billion Christians. That mean must it's the majority and very prevalent.


Does this sentiment still apply when it's a couple examples out of the billion and a half Muslim? Just curious...



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I didn't say I want speech I don't like illegal...


People can say what they want...

I'm specifically taking about inciting hatred with a view to violent oppression.



If you already have those laws, then the premise of this "shoot the gays" initiative shouldn't even be allowed to be petitioned should it not?

Unless the law doesn't apply to such, in which case I refer you back to every post I've made so far on that specific topic.


Because "inciting hatred" is a very broad and subjective term that can quite easily be misapplied.

Why shouldn't a guy be allowed to try to circulate a stupid petition? That's what a free society means, that any citizen can voice an opinion and circulate petitions.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

BS. Leviticus is not JUST focused on homosexuality. It covers a broad range of subjects the current subject being a very small part. The point is, trotters-out of the 'rules' books of the Bible only seem to mention the particular rules they personally wish to endorse ignoring all the others that are inconvenient or negatively impact their lifestyle. My point is, if you believe that these writings are authoritative you do NOT have the right to pick-and-choose which you will endorse and which you will not. It's all or nothing.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well for one, I'm on here speaking out against it.

Since he's in California and I'm in the Midwest with a several hundred miles separating us, it's going to be hard for me to do much else especially as I have to go to work here in an hour or so.

I could also point out that he's out with a petition trying to get 350,000 signatures and might have trouble in a land where there is a still a 70% identification of Christian in the populace. If this were really the popular position among Christians ... wouldn't he have his signatures? Heck, why would he even need his petition if this were really the popular position among Christians?



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

No there is nothing broad about provoking violent reaction to a different group of people...


& the above does not fall under the banner of a mere "opinion"...
It's an invitation, an encouragement...



The two being juxtaposed is why I dodge "freedom of speech" threads...

They are not the same thing.



"I hate your guts..."

"I think people should kill you because I hate your guts..."



You work out which one is covered by freedom of expression and which isn't!



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: ketsuko

BS. Leviticus is not JUST focused on homosexuality. It covers a broad range of subjects the current subject being a very small part. The point is, trotters-out of the 'rules' books of the Bible only seem to mention the particular rules they personally wish to endorse ignoring all the others that are inconvenient or negatively impact their lifestyle. My point is, if you believe that these writings are authoritative you do NOT have the right to pick-and-choose which you will endorse and which you will not. It's all or nothing.






You missed the point.

The OT Covenant of Law is superseded by the New Testament Covenant of Grace. We do not have to carry out the law in terms of the punishments or sacrifices. However, you will find that the subject is addressed in the New Testament as are the other sexual sins. So it's not like God just forgot about them.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join