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.

 

With Trump Pick Aboard, Supreme Court Tackles Religious Rights

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Miracula2

To be raped yes. And it was about mistreatment of the guests according to Ezekiel 16:49. Are you seriously comparing gays of today wanting equal rights to the attempted rape of the angels?




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: rickymouse
It appears that the problem with gays in the bible comes from their pushy and overpowering tendencies, not from their sexual orientation.




Before Sodom was destroyed. They DEMANDED that the two angels inside visiting the men worthy of receiving such visitation be brought outside so they could know them carnally.

They didn't ask, or request. They DEMANDED it.


I see an attitude like that in our society today, but it is not widespread and there are laws against that kind of thing. There are still pedophile rings and hookers and people demanding sex from others. Actually, Muslims allow that kind of thing under certain situations. That is one reason why Many Christians do not like the Muslim Religion. Our laws governing rape are a direct result of Christians concerns. A lot of the laws we have giving us rights were originated from Christianity. A lot of bad was done in the past under the name of god, but in the last fifty years Christians have been attempting to correct things so they will not get out of hand. You can use precedence and history to keep society on track and it appears all of what many tried hard to fix is falling apart. We are having more racially driven violence lately and even politically driven violence and twisting of evidence to match ones belief is becoming accepted. We are going backwards as a society now.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: rickymouse

That's terrible.


Hey, the guy lost his tent and left town, they could have charged him with buying alcohol for minors, soliciting sex with minors, and possibly a lot more. Good thing the Sheriff department was there when they burnt down his tent, otherwise if he came back there could have been a conflict.


I saw the guy that night, he was packing up what was left on the site and leaving town. Word gets around when an old gay guy tries to get a kid drunk and get him into the sack. Actually other kids at the party brought this to the attention of their parents, who were on the fire department. There were supposedly a lot of firemen out there from a few departments from what I hear. The place where the teens partied was supposed to be free of pedafiles. The cops would stop by the parties a few times a night to make sure everything was all right. The kids drinking around the campfire was way less of a problem then them getting in trouble in town. I heard that from the cops themselves, they told us to tell the kids not to run into the woods, if one got his eye poked out on a branch it would create a lot of paperwork.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Good point! If you don't pay taxes to begin with then you have no authority to be seeking money from the state.


Say good by to social programs then.

Since the MAJORITY of people on those programs pay none to begin with.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

He was speaking from within the context of religion and churches.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group


www.marketwatch.com...



Good point!If you don't pay taxes to begin with then you have no authority to be seeking money from the state.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Individuals are not the same as churches.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I already answered your question; that is unless you need me to explain to you what "Separation of Church and State" means.


So how far does your interpretation reach?
Should local fd and pd respond at taxpayers expense?

This is an absurd stretch of what I'm getting at.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Most equitable solution: taxpayer funds shouldn't be used for ANY nonprofit group. The nonprofits already received their "reward" by not being taxed. The rest of it should be on their shoulders to fund in all cases, religious or otherwise.

Situation 2: I really hope the court rules with some sense of libertarian logic on the "gay cake" issue. The business owner holds all the risk and, as such, should retain the right to run their investment as they see fit. "We retain the right to refuse service to you" is absolutely fair and legal, and is the only logical way to approach someone who holds all the losses should their business fail.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



Most equitable solution: taxpayer funds shouldn't be used for ANY nonprofit group. The nonprofits already received their "reward" by not being taxed. The rest of it should be on their shoulders to fund in all cases, religious or otherwise.

Yeah except that it isn't fair on them due to some churches whining about their religious rights.



"We retain the right to refuse service to you" is absolutely fair and legal, and is the only logical way to approach someone who holds all the losses should their business fail.

We already tried that and it failed. And it's bad for economy. We simply cannot trust people. I wish this was an ideal world.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Now they are trying to get girls and gays into boy scouts.....how does that teach them to manage their sexual urges? Some may say that separating people from others to have sex with was not the right way, it worked fine back then. There were far less problems with Boy scouts and girl scouts back those days than within the regular people who were all wrapped up in finding partners of the opposite sex. The girls in girlscouts were way less wild back then, they were more into nature than being obsessed with cute movie stars and young rock stars. Beetle freaks were not the same as those who loved nature back then.

First off. "They" aren't doing anything. This is just a suggestion that I decided due to the topic conversation. For two, what's this about managing sexual urges? The scouts doesn't and has never done that. But that doesn't mean you can't change the way scouts works so that boys and girls can be together without teaching it. Just because integration creates new problems that didn't exist before doesn't mean it it's a bad idea.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Vigilante justice. Why didn't this guy get his right to face his accusers and be tried by a jury of his peers?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Most equitable solution: taxpayer funds shouldn't be used for ANY nonprofit group. The nonprofits already received their "reward" by not being taxed. The rest of it should be on their shoulders to fund in all cases, religious or otherwise.

Churches also get the right to discriminate because of Separation of Church and state. THAT is really why they shouldn't receive tax money. They are trying to get legal benefits from the Establishment Clause while at the same time take advantage of state giveaways. You can't have it both ways. If religions want to get tax money then they should be forced to be non-discriminatory.


Situation 2: I really hope the court rules with some sense of libertarian logic on the "gay cake" issue. The business owner holds all the risk and, as such, should retain the right to run their investment as they see fit. "We retain the right to refuse service to you" is absolutely fair and legal, and is the only logical way to approach someone who holds all the losses should their business fail.

As we learned in the past, this just leads to too much bigotry. It sounds good on paper, but humans are pieces of # in reality. Thus this is a bad idea that usually leads to intolerance.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: rickymouse

Vigilante justice. Why didn't this guy get his right to face his accusers and be tried by a jury of his peers?


There would have been plenty of evidence to put him away for a long time. He was lucky. What is your problem, would you have rather seen him go to prison because he did have sex with some minors just not the one I gave an example of.

Vigilante justice would have been if the father of one of the kids he raped after getting the kid drunk had shot him. I consider this guy lucky that is all they did. He did have sex with other minors and witnesses who knew it happened.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I'll just leave this here ...

Chris tian Schoolteacher in UK Gets 22 Life Sentences for Raping as many as 200 Schoolchildren



A Christian schoolteacher from England who police believe sexually abused as many as 200 children from poor communities in Malaysia and bragged about his exploits online, was given 22 life sentences after admitting to 71 charges of sex abuse against children aged 6 months to 12 years.


Conservative Christian TLC Star Arrested on Allegations of Child Rape

Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Cases - Wiki

Father and son accused of rape want ‘only law book that truly matters’ at their trial: The Bible

Are these cherry picked? You betcha.

Let's just ease up on the idea that "Christians" are somehow blameless in matters of child abuse and rape ... shall we?

Pedophiles and rapists are members of all religions, all political parties, all walks of life.

PIcking one characteristic over another and saying that has $&!# to do with anything is absurd.

Now, carry on.
edit on 17-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't mandate empathy.

Personally, in regards to tax paying businesses, they should have the right to discriminate. If society disagrees with the business' choices, the free market will bring the owners to task.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes I'd rather see him in jail than able to manipulate a teenage boy into sexual acts... sex with minors is illegal, getting minors to be intoxicated so that you can have sex with them is rape. What is your problem?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

AKA "picking and choosing"



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



AKA "picking and choosing"

Huh? Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.


edit on 4/17/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't mandate empathy.

I'm not telling you to be empathetic to their cause. I'm just telling you to serve them in your businesses because they are a part of the public just like anyone else.


Personally, in regards to tax paying businesses, they should have the right to discriminate. If society disagrees with the business' choices, the free market will bring the owners to task.

Again. It doesn't work like that in reality. What happens in reality is that the discrimination becomes entrenched and taught to the next generation. The entire time no one addresses the fact that a segment of the population is slowly generation by generation getting rights and access to public commodities less and less. This is reality.

Again, libertarianism is only a good ideal. It doesn't play out in reality like that. There is a reason I stopped pursuing that political direction. It is just too lacking... Humans aren't reliable to do the right thing. Especially when money is involved.

In any case, you don't have to like it, but this was settled back in the Civil Rights era. There is a reason all those black people stood up against Segregation you know.
edit on 18-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join