It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Upon request by Kim Davis’ legal team, Oath Keepers is canceling the planned security detail for Mrs. Davis in Morehead, Kentucky.
Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’ legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning. We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.
originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: Hefficide
Perfect!! So, we can group up all the religious lunatics at once, and in one swoop action take them all away
I love people who dedicate their whole life to a work of fiction... lol
In 1907, the Boer legislature passed a law requiring that all Indians register with the police and be fingerprinted. Gandhi, along with many other Indians, refused to obey this law. He was arrested and put in jail, the first of many times he would be imprisoned for disobeying what he believed to be unjust laws.
While in jail, Gandhi read the essay "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau, a 19th-century American writer. Gandhi adopted the term "civil disobedience" to describe his strategy of non-violently refusing to cooperate with injustice, but he preferred the Sanskrit word satyagraha (devotion to truth).
Many readers of "A Secular Humanist Declaration" will be amused at the pretentious arrogance characterizing the signers' claim to a kind of monopoly on critical intelligence, rationality, intellectual enlightment, scientific integrity, the moral virtues, and appreciation for political freedom and social democracy. Much might be said, moreover, concerning the acute contradictions that characterize Secular Humanism's attempt to sustain a morality without God, to provide a foundation for human values without God the Creator, to discover rational moral principles without a logical reference to their source and ground in a transcendent Deity whom we in Western Civilization call God (and Who is the foundation for all religious and moral obligations).
The adamant opposition against indoctrination is therefore self contradictory. It is precisely the purpose of indoctrination to acquaint the student with a set of moral principles. When they state: "Children should learn about..." "Public education should deal with these values:, they are actually advocating indoctrination of their own ideas. Secular Humanism ultimately contradicts itself when it claims for itself a set of moral judgments and values, while at the same time denying that "any particular sect can claim for itself important values". The addition of the words "as their exclusive property" adds to the contradiction since the Secular Humanist statement is claiming truth as its own property; it is actually a sect setting up a list of doctrinaire declarations.
In fact secular humanists claim for themselves the prerogative of being the authentic interpreters of a universal moral law, of "rational moral principles". They implicitly claim to be the universal ethical umbrella group for all humanity.
Here are several excepts from Judge Hand’s lucid, logical, and concise examination of Secular Humanism as a belief system that easily qualifies it to be regarded as a religion. He wroteHumanism] purports to establish a closed definition of reality; not closed in that its adherents know everything, but in that everything is knowable: can be reconciled by the human intellect aided only by the devices of that intellect’s own creation or discovery. The most important belief of this religion is its denial of the transcendent and/or supernatural: there is no God, no creator, no divinity. By force of logic, the universe is thus self-existing, completely physical and hence, essentially knowable. Man is the product of evolutionary, physical forces. He is purely biological and has no supernatural or transcendent spiritual component or quality. ...
In addition, humanism, as a belief system, erects a moral code and identifies the source of morality. This source is claimed to exist in humans and the social relations of humans. ...
Secular humanism ... has organizational characteristics.Some groups are more structured and hierarchical, others less so. ... These organizations proselytize and preach their theories with the avowed purpose of persuading nonadherents to believe as they do.:
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Giving equal rights to everyone is unjust?
When it involves gays, then apparently not!
CALLER: Well, I'm just saying isn't it remarkable how effective the Ladies of the Left have been. In other words, we have a group called the Ladies of the Left that have gotten together and we've formed a unstoppable group of women to destroy the youth of the country by populating the schools with propaganda and --
RUSH: Okay, so you are calling to gloat in victory of your destruction of the moral code of the country and in schools?
CALLER: Very perceptive, Rush. That's why we admire you so much and we follow all of your 35 Undeniable Truths of life. We've stolen them and used them for our use because, as the youth have been dumbed down, they don't understand it's propaganda and they can't speak up because they think that this woman is wrong. And you know she's right. But we beat her. And we beat --
RUSH: So wait a minute. If I'm to understand you correctly here, Vanessa, you'RE part of the Ladies of the Left, some lesbians, and you've bullied and overpowered every bit of moral opposition? You're succeeding and destroying the moral code of the country and you're happy?
CALLER: Well, of course, but not just like me. Ladies of the Left --
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Gandhi, the ultimate leader in civil disobedience....
DISOBEYING UNJUST LAWS....and he is still a hero for it.
Take it for what you will, but the real thing here is that people here are not really condemning her for breaking the law, that's just a convenient justification, they are condemning her for why she did it. And in fact what she is really showing everyone is that people on the Left are willing to break any law for what they want but condemn everyone else for the same thing.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
So with that, may you enjoy going on with arguing your particular set of moral values or lack thereof.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
originally posted by: undo
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
that rush excerpt sounds like propaganda that might work in a third world country but come on.