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.

 

OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

page: 24
9
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: gwynnhwyfar
...yoga is of Satan.


Whoever invented those see through Lulu Lemon yoga pants should become God in my book.


You made me have to do a google image search to figure out what you were talking about! Are women actually wearing those in public??? Damn...I am living in the wrong part of the country.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I do know why the government first got involved,
and it is an excellent reason to support
the government to become involved.

There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



Wait. Did you just say that it was a GOOD thing for the government to become involved with marriage so that interracial marriages would be banned?

I'm really hoping I'm misreading what you typed here.

PS: There never WERE any legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage. Period. That should have been your answer.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

What's clear is that politics are supposed to stay out of the church as ordered by 501(c)3 status. That is 100% clear in regards to the stipulations granted them by tax exempt status. It is also clear that there are no provisions saying that churches don't have to pay taxes.

Y'all have just gotten so used to the privilege that you believe it is a right.


Free must mean something else on your planet.


What does this have to do with freedom? Point out where in the Constitution that it ENTITLES churches not to pay taxes.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw


Making a point, simply for the express purpose of making a point.

To be consistent, just, fair and to give equal treatment under the law. Yes all you mentioned above should be removed.

But it doesn't seem anyone is looking for what is just or fair or equal treatment.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.




This is the larger point that apparently I am 'too stupid' to understand. Sadly, I do take some pleasure when a thought goes right over a man's head and he has no idea that he missed it - need to work on that.


Why is no one complaining about Solon the sodomite atop the pediment of the Supreme Court? Because fair and equal treatment is NOT their goal.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Who's trying to make this some sort of "utopia"?

I just want to live my life the way I see fit, allow others to do the same, and deny those that want to push their agendas and beliefs on to me.




originally posted by: Seamrog

I see this as an incredibly selfish, naive worldview. If you lived on your own little earth, this may be a valid concept, but in this reality, it speaks to a relatively narrow experience of a broader world.




originally posted by: Megatronus

I can't believe I just read that to be honest. He is selfish for wanting to live his life free of having ideology forced on him. I see comments like this from Christians and instantly think "what would Jesus have said" definately not that he is selfish.




I understand that this is a difficult concept for many to grasp - and impossible for some to grasp simply due to their childish, self-absorbed worldview.

Another author has put it to words much more eloquently that I could so, here ya go:





Another way to put it is that, like the eternal teenager, he fails to see that liberty and law are twins.

He has also founded our social life upon the antisocial. He might as well have written, “Every man is an island unto himself,” a dreamer on an island, ignoring all the other dreamers on their other islands, and yet asserting that his dream on his island must be respected, just because he has dreamed it. What that ultimately means is that we are no society at all. For society, says Sheed, citing Augustine, is defined by the greatest love that unites us.

...there is no reality in man’s life which we must all honor, whether we like it or not, and very often we will not like it—why, if I am the determiner of meaning, should I revere people who are cruel or lazy or stupid or dishonest or ugly or vulgar?





For far too many in the post modern world ignore the terrible consequences of "I just want to be left alone to do what I want" - consequences that cannot be seen because they remain naval-gazing adolescents....they fail to see that "Liberty and Law are twins."

Absent that, we will have chaos - which is unfolding before us now. When the predictable consequences come knocking, I hope I will be here to say "We told you so....."


edit on 2-7-2015 by Seamrog because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by Seamrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

What, exactly, are these predictable consequences?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Well since pc is the order of the day, I want the Statue of Liberty removed since the statue represents the roman goddess libertas!!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

Not sure why this means that we can't let gays get married.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I've seen a gazillion arguments in the past few days. Some more intelligent than others, some downright bizarre.

What it seems to boil down to is:

"Gays are icky, they're not like us, we've been told they're bad and our lifestyle is better -- so they shouldn't have what we straight people have."

I mean, when I combine all the anti arguments together and boil them down, that's pretty much what I seem to keep getting.

A group of people having to share something they don't want to share, because they don't like gay people. I get told "no! I have no problem with gay people...I just don't think they should get married".

And in my personal opinion? Any "God" that can create supermassive black holes, quantum physics and the countless other mysteries of the universe is so beyond our comprehension that it's an affront to think something like two men or women marrying offends him. In fact, it's offensive and arrogant to think we humans even can grasp what a creator may find offensive. We make assumptions based on what some people over 2,000 years ago wrote down in a book. How do we know some creator spoke to those people anyway? And why would a being so powerful give .2 over gay people marrying?

I think this shows the height of human arrogance and ignorance right there. Look around you, look at the trees, grass, sky -- imagine all the billions upon billions of stars in the sky. We're ants -- not even ants to something so impressively powerful as the creator of the universe. How silly of us to assume we know or understand what that creative force wants from us, write it down, and continue to follow those same words for over 2,000 years.


Gays are not icky. They are just like everyone else.

What people do in the bedroom is no one else's business and I mean no one.

Now that this matter is settled,
if we change to contracts that take the government out of it; well the polygamist who wants to make a marriage contract will probably be free to do so within a very short time.

Take the government out of lives as much as possible, leave people alone.

Stop the government from interfering in the private lives of people.
The marriage contract will do just that.
Keep what you do in the bedroom private!
A contract will do exactly what a license does
except no one need ask Uncle Sam for permission to do it,
a real victory for all and keeps the bedroom as it should be
private and no one else's business - nor should anyone make it other's business -
it is private and should be kept that way out of decency and regard for others.
If I engaged in extreme S&M I should not run around
and tell everyone and insist they accept me and what I do,
I should keep it to myself where it belongs,
private and in the bedroom and between me
and the person I marry who likes extreme S&M.

Are you sure you are a Mod?

If so, you should have long ago deleted all posts that do not relate directly to the OP.

There are lots of conversations, including those I engaged in that do not belong in this thread. Why haven't you censured them all, the ones about guns with no mention of SCOTUS, the ones about gay marriage with no mention of SCOTUS, the ones about progressivism with no mention of SCOTUS or the 10 Commandments, or the ones that simply degrade religion with no mention of SCOTUS. I have noticed you have allowed extreme thread drift so you can participate in these discussions and as a Mod don't you think a warning should have been issued or deleting posts?

Of course, I ask you don't delete all of my drifts
and get me kicked off because you delete so many after letting them go on.

But please, why are you allowing such massive thread drift in this thread?


edit on 9Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:48:56 -0500am70207amk024 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




Are you sure you are a Mod?


What a lame argument! Moderators don't moderate threads that they're participating in!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

What's clear is that politics are supposed to stay out of the church as ordered by 501(c)3 status. That is 100% clear in regards to the stipulations granted them by tax exempt status. It is also clear that there are no provisions saying that churches don't have to pay taxes.

Y'all have just gotten so used to the privilege that you believe it is a right.


Free must mean something else on your planet.


What does this have to do with freedom? Point out where in the Constitution that it ENTITLES churches not to pay taxes.


Once churches pay taxes the IRS can interfere in what they do.

The IRS has already shown and demonstrated that they will, and can, and have
set out to "punish" those whom the current administration
deems to be acting in ways they don't approve of.
The IRS is an arm of the current administration right now,
one that goes after those the administration deems enemies
and through the government punishes and censures.

If a church pays taxes, the government can then legally go after and punish
any church if the administration in power doesn't like what they are
saying.

Also, think of this,
my church's budget has 12% of all "income" going directly to mission's
(giving assistance and help to the poor or the needy or the orphan outside our church grounds,
mostly overseas, some local like boys and girls homes)

my church also has within it's budget that isn't labeled "missions":
like my sewing group who makes quilts for the homeless;
for foster children who go to camp;
mats for the homeless to sleep on;
bags for foster children to carry their things in
since the government only gives them trash bags
when they move from home to home

My church does many many many similar activities
that are not in our designated "mission" budget;
like the group my husband belongs to that goes to homeless camps with food.

All of these activities would be tax deductible.

We have been told the value of our quilts alone
is well over $100 per quilt and we give away hundreds each year.
All would be tax deductible.

In the end taxation would be a pointless exercise
as the people in our church and in many many
if not most churches give away in value or cash
probably more than 50% of what they take in
(the rest going to support the building structure and the printing and the staff)

So most churches give away so much that they would owe nothing after deducting for what they give away


Once the IRS is involved
my sewing group would need an accountant,
to keep up with what we personally, out of our pockets, spend on fabric and thread;
and then to pay someone to value the quilts regularly;
and then to keep track of what each quilt;

We would have to hire an accountant to keep up with;
the bags or dresses (we make dresses, pretty ones, for an orphanage in Africa)
or layette (we make pretty layettes for babies
who are stillborn to be taken to their Mothers in for a goodbye)

We'd need to hire a tax attorney to figure out how much each of these
is worth, how many we make (we currently don't keep track, we just do it)

And the poor, the needy, the grieving would get less help
in the long run as we spend time and money
figuring out all this crap for the IRS (the government)


My church does what many churches do
for the poor, the needy, the homeless, the grieving.

Once the government forces churches to pay taxes
(by the way all the staff pays taxes)
then the red tape takes away from what can be done to help others.

That is the real goal of my church
and most churches I know to help others in need.
That is what awful religion
and awful Christianity and
awful Christians do with most of their time.

But once the state breaks down the barrier
between church and state by making churches pay taxes,
the churches are then quite legally free
(which they are not legally free to do now)
to engage in as much political behavior as they want.


Right now most churches are shy due to a fear of lawsuits
by an atheist or by the government itself
for breaking the barrier and thus being subject to taxation, I know our church is.
The few churches who do engage in
political behavior are very few and far between and risk losing
their status.

But once churches pay taxes,
there will be no more fear of lawsuits for engaging in political behavior
as since they will pay taxes they can then be full and equal participants in the political arena
and they can fully and openly and without fear participate in politics.
The only thing currently keeping most churches from participating in politics is
the fear of losing their tax exempt status for engaging in politics.


And this is what you want to see an end to? Really?


Do you really want to see awful religious people like the ones described above to
be free to fully get involved in politics and the political arena without fear of our
church losing it's tax exempt status? Because once the state taxes churches there
will be absolutely no reason for churches to avoid getting involved in politics,
as most do now.
Not all for sure, as there is the fringe vocal minority and weirdos
like Westboro, but most stay clear of politics to keep their tax exempt status.

Really?


edit on 10Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:44:03 -0500am70207amk024 by grandmakdw because: format

edit on 10Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:46:30 -0500am70207amk024 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

OK, but Christianity's roots are in Judaism which roots are in the Canaanite religion. What's your point? Are we a Canaanite country?

The U.S.A. is not a Christian country. If so everyone would have to be Christian and there would be punishable laws against doing non-Christian things. And those barbaric punishments would be straight out of the Christian Bible...right? What should be the sentence for those found guilty of working on a Sunday? A fine, jail time, or death? That sounds pretty close to what ISIS wants/is making. Do you really want to live in that sort of place? I don't.

So, yes we should take the universal no-brianer/sane parts of Christianity (like: don't murder people) and ignore the barbaric, voodoo stuff.


Why are you calling the Old Testament a Christian Bible? That would be the New Testament. The OT is shared as a cornerstone with 3 religions - why focus your comments on one?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The Christians are not trying to do away with marriage, they want marriage to be taken entirely out of the hands of the government, and rather than have a license to marry, people will go to a lawyer or notary and sign a marriage contract. There will still be marriage, but the government will have zero say in who does or doesn't marry. Any adult can contract with any other adult (unless it involves incest or multiple partners) and have a marriage contract. There is still going to be marriage, it just won't be defined by the government, but be defined by the people entering into a marriage contract. There will still be marriage and legal marriage, it will just be by contract rather than by license.


I'd believe this was more altruistic if it weren't for the fact that Christians started pursuing this path of attack AFTER they lost the gay marriage debate instead of from the very beginning like they should have. Now it just looks like a pathetic attempt to continue to keep gays from marrying while appealing to the "smaller government" creed. Especially since gay marriage bans are LARGER government, not smaller government.

You do know that racist Christians trying to prevent interracial marriage is the reason why the government is involved with marriage in the first place? The government just grew past the racist reasons for it and kept control for other reasons.


Shouldn't that be "Right wing homophobes using religion (again, you target Christianity, homosexuality is denounced a lot harder in Islam and hardly smiled upon in Judaism) lost the gay marriage debate"?

I seriously wish you would stop tarring everyone with the same brush. I haven't seen any surveys that say 100% of atheists are totally in favour of gay marriage, have you?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


I'd believe this was more altruistic if it weren't for the fact that Christians started pursuing this path of attack AFTER they lost the gay marriage debate instead of from the very beginning like they should have. Now it just looks like a pathetic attempt to continue to keep gays from marrying while appealing to the "smaller government" creed. Especially since gay marriage bans are LARGER government, not smaller government.


Actually the law was passed in Alabama before "losing" the gay marriage debate.
It was passed 19 May 2015, before anyone knew what the outcome of SCOTUS would be.

The law does NOT ban gay marriage, it does not ban marriage at all;
it simply makes all marriage a contract rather than a license.

The license requires a ceremony to validate the license;
a contract does not require a ceremony of any kind to be made valid.

The SCOTUS decision also nullified the portion
of the AL constitution which banned gay marriage.

The new law requiring a contract which has all the benefits of a license,
does not discriminate against anyone
and takes government out of deciding
who can and who can not get married
(by contract rather than asking your dear Uncle Sam
for permission and then getting his written permission
and a requirement for a ceremony)

People can still marry by signing a contract
and have all the rights and privileges
of those married by license and required ceremony.
(Yes the ceremony was required, however a judge or
other named persons could perform the ceremony)
Now only a lawyer or notary has to validate the
contract with no requirement for a ceremony to
make the marriage, with all the rights and benefits
of a license,
to make the marriage legal.

It is radical and alarmist and fringe lefties who have their panties
in a wad that they don't have to have a ceremony anymore to
be married and they don't have to get the governments
permission to marry anymore.


It denies no one anything,
ceremony is totally optional,
one can still be done,
but it is no longer a requirement.
No one has to get permission from anyone
to marry as long as they are an adult
and can legally sign the marriage contract.

What LGBT are upset about is that
with the license came a requirement
for a ceremony.
Since a contract does not require
a ceremony, they no longer have
legal grounds to sue churches
or ministers for not performing
the ceremony. As the ceremony
is optional and not required.
They are upset they can't sue
pastors and churches with the new
contract.


edit on 10Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:41:09 -0500am70207amk024 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I do know why the government first got involved,
and it is an excellent reason to support
the government to become involved.

There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.



Wait. Did you just say that it was a GOOD thing for the government to become involved with marriage so that interracial marriages would be banned?

I'm really hoping I'm misreading what you typed here.

PS: There never WERE any legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage. Period. That should have been your answer.


No I am saying that because of the history of how the government first became involved in marriage:
the ugly history:
that doing away with the ugly history
and undoing government being involved in marriage
partly because of the ugly and awful reason they became involved in it
is a good thing.

The marriage contract, you seem to not understand.
Will afford the people who sign it all the rights and privileges of those with a license.
People will still have to go to court to "invalidate" (divorce) the contract.
All the rights and privileges and the messy divorce procedures will remain in place
with the marriage contract.

No one is denied anything with the contract,
the only one being denied is the government,
and the requirement of some sort of ceremony to validate the license.

That is what has many LGBT upset,
the lack of a requirement for a ceremony,
for without that requirement,
they can't sue churches for not doing a ceremony,
since the ceremony won't be required to validate the marriage.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Look you can whine and moan all you want about it. It really isn't a Constitutionally protected right of churches not to have tax exempt status.

Though you are in luck, there is no legal precedent that has been set that would justify taking 501(c)3 status away from churches on the grounds that they don't marry gay people. The current precedent set by Bob Jones University v. United States only applies to universities and has strictly been said that cannot be applied to churches.


Bob Jones University v. United States was decided May 24, 1983 in an 8-1 decision with majority opinion written by Warren E. Burger, and joined by William J. Brennan, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The Court, speaking through Burger, read a "common law" public interest requirement into the statute governing tax-exempt charitable status, and cited Congress' refusal to intervene as proof that they approved of the IRS's construction of the statute. The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."[2]



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
Shouldn't that be "Right wing homophobes using religion (again, you target Christianity, homosexuality is denounced a lot harder in Islam and hardly smiled upon in Judaism) lost the gay marriage debate"?


Muslims and Jews in this country aren't leading the charge. Just because Muslims and Jews in other parts of the world are actively discriminating against homosexuals doesn't implicitly mean that they are doing it here. I'm sure you can find a few, but they aren't the religion at the forefront of the "deny gays the right to marry" movement. So your point here is a red herring.


I seriously wish you would stop tarring everyone with the same brush. I haven't seen any surveys that say 100% of atheists are totally in favour of gay marriage, have you?


Again, it is the Christians that are primarily pushing this movement. While I'm sure that there are a few atheists that don't approve of gay marriage, the secular reasons for not allowing it are weaker than the religious ones. They are very few and far between. We all know who the real bad guys are here and trying to beat around the bush by throwing other demographics under the bus is dishonest.

I would have sympathized with you more if you went the other direction and insisted that it isn't all Christians who believe this. At least then I could have agreed with you more. Because that is true. It is mostly right wing Christians who don't understand how our Constitution works that think this. Not all Christians fall into that category. Many Christians on the left are fine with gay marriage and there are plenty Christians on the right who may not agree with gay marriage but understand how the Constitution works so know that using religion to legislate against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Instead you went down the "misery loves company" route.
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


And that's why we're here, Christians couldn't handle the idea of having to share the public square with the other 300 religions, especially Satanism and the Baphomet statue!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join