Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

POLITICS: Alabama Bill to Ban 'Gay' books and Gay Authors

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
first texas now this state.tie up those loops holes.child protection is now in effect .as i have said before children need protection and this needs too be addressed on a world scale.there is nothing bad about this policy it needs to be done.
keep the ball rolling.i enjoy the twist of the chruches mistakes that they though around to make there point.it like seeing grown adults throw stones at each other....

[edit on 29-4-2005 by flukemol]




posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The Christian faith believes all people sin, need forgiveness, and should turn away from sinful lifestyles and refrain from it . . .

This would have been a good stopping place. Talk to those preacher/minsters again about sin. You have missed something.

But, back to the thread- I still think the subject (gay books) is a smoke screen. The issue is government control.

Government control can only be changed through the ballot box.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Yes Gays are evil in the bible Skadi, BUT IN THE SAME CHAPTER IT SAYS TO STONE KIDS TO DEATH FOR SAYING NO/THROWING TANTRUMS! So, follow both rules or neither, can't pick and choose god's rules.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Yes Gays are evil in the bible Skadi, BUT IN THE SAME CHAPTER IT SAYS TO STONE KIDS TO DEATH FOR SAYING NO/THROWING TANTRUMS! So, follow both rules or neither, can't pick and choose god's rules.


Hey, I didnt say the Bible made any sort of sense, nor am I promoting as something I believe in. Im simply pointing out, to both liberals and Christians, that the bible clearly states in its own words, that homosexuality is evil and immoral, that unlike what some gay advocates in the church claim, its not really as open for interpretation as they claim. I have often been amazed at how people can somehow claim that the bible doesnt condemn homosexuality, or that its ok to be gay and Christian. What puzzles me more is why gays would want to be Christians, or remain so, if they do indeed decide to stay gay as opposed to repenting for their "sins" and turning away from the gay lifestyle. Why they would continue in a religon that clearly condemns them.

Joe Doaks, I haven't missed anything. The ministers I talked made it clear: sin is sin. Whether you are an achoholic, a liar, or a homosexual, the sin is the same in God's eyes. To recieve salvation, the sinner must truly repent and feel bad for their sin, ask Jesus to forgive them, and from then on, must turn away from the sinful life that they engage in. This means, after repenting, the alcholic must stop drinking, the liar must stop telling lies, and the homosexual must stop having homosexual relations. I also know about the bible verse about a person who fantasizes about adultery has committed adultery in their heart, and thus, has sinned as bad as a person who has committed adultery for real. Thus, homosexuals, by Christian beliefs, must also control and purge their sexual feelings about members of the same sex. However, regardless, according to the ministers, god loves gays as much as he loves everyone else, it is their lifestyle and sexual desires that he hates and finds abominable, according to Christian doctrine. But by Christian beliefs, homosexuals are as worthy of salvation and redemption as anyone else, and thus, youre still supposed to love them and pray for them.

And Ill say it again. The school system should not be teaching about homosexuality, as this is something that is sensitive, and teaching children that it is normal and acceptable is in violation of religous freedom and parental rights. However, burning books simply because they are written by homosexuals or might have a slight gay theme to them is also unconstitutional. Library books are not required parts of education. No one is being forced by the school to read library books: books in the school library are more often than not for optional reading and auxillary education, or for research. If a kid checks out a book that has to do with homosexuality, it is the parent's responsibility to check up on what their kids are reading, and thus, prohibit the child from reading that paticular book. The first amendment goes both ways: freedom of speech is also protected along with freedom of religon, thus, books should not be banned, but parents need to take special notes of any literature that might go against their religous beliefs. This way, parents who believe homosexuality is acceptable, and wish to teach their kids acceptance, have the option of that child having access to suc literature.

With our constitutional rights come responsibilities, and parents, while having rights to raise their children as they see fit, also have the responsibility of teaching children their ways, and the responsibility to monitor what their children see on TV and read. the state's responsibility is not to indoctrinate children with any sort of belief system, political or otherwise, but to educate children in the basics, and its also the responsibility of the state, while respecting the right of people to hold unpopular beliefs, to also protect the variety and differences of opinion by not banning material and instead keeping their noses out of peoples belief systems.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
www.jeffcosheriff.org...

The above link is to the Jefferson County Sherriffs Office FAQ on Childrens' Rights.

It's a bit scary, and I'm not even talking about the spelling errors.

To sum up, the police don't need to let a parent know they're talking to the kid, the police can talk to a kid without the parents permission, including interogation/interview/statement taking.

I think gay literature might be the last of Alabama's problems. It appears the parents in Alabama are so trusting of the police, they allow their children to be interogated without consent or another adult present.

Edit: This is in regards to Child Protection brought up by another poster, by the way.


[edit on 29-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   
As I understand it from word of mouth, this bill died on the vine. Nobody wanted to have their name on it one way or the other. But I could be wrong.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
RANT
That wouldn't surprise me at all. It was just a way to build political support. There are so many intolerant people, putting up a bill like this is sure to get a lot of attention. Attention equals visibility, which of course equals advertising, and advertising wins elections by and large.

So the guy got some free publicity targetting his base, and no Alabama gays were inconvenienced enough to mount any sort of ferocious counter-attack. Presumably anyway. I suppose time will tell.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
www.jeffcosheriff.org...

The above link is to the Jefferson County Sherriffs Office FAQ on Childrens' Rights.

It's a bit scary, and I'm not even talking about the spelling errors.

To sum up, the police don't need to let a parent know they're talking to the kid, the police can talk to a kid without the parents permission, including interogation/interview/statement taking.

I think gay literature might be the last of Alabama's problems. It appears the parents in Alabama are so trusting of the police, they allow their children to be interogated without consent or another adult present.

Edit: This is in regards to Child Protection brought up by another poster, by the way.


[edit on 29-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]


Ahhhh, now there is something people should be far mroe concerned about than gay books. Cops infringing on not only parental rights, but constitutional ones. This idiot in the Alabama legilsature should be far more concerned about this than gay writers. As far as I am concerned, no matter what, parents should be the ultimate authorities in a child's life, and thus, have control over things like cops speaking to kids. I would hope that some citizens get together and have this law overturned.

But I am pleased to see the book banning bill has been shot down. It restores my faith in this country when I see the constitution prevailing over the idocy of the few, even when they are small victories.

Now they need to focus on better parental consent laws.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Oops, double post.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Skadi, you don't understand, the same people who want to round up the gays and kill them just happen to not mention that god tells them to kill kids who say no/throw tantrums. So, they follow one rule in the chapter but none of the others. These people aren't thinking, or if they are, that's even more scary.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Now they won't get to shove the Bible down my kid's throat.

Never did like that Sodom and Gomorrah story. Now its banned, I'm cool.

Right on.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Thats right, there are gays in the bible, PASS IT!!!! We get to ban the bible! But it already died for it seems everyone else in power in Alabama have a brain.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

But, back to the thread- I still think the subject (gay books) is a smoke screen. The issue is government control.

Government control can only be changed through the ballot box.


I have read all of your posts in this thread and agree with your assessment that we need to handle this by the ballot box.


You have voted JoeDoaks for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Probably because I live in the state of New Hampshire I have a real close up view of how we come down to an election of choosing the "lesser of two evils".

New Hampshire holds the first primary and already the process has started here for 2008. We get to see, close up and personal, all those who are interested in being president. I believe this is where, we as voters, need to take our stand. The primaries. Some really good choices are here.

So what happens? Most of these "good choices" don't have the money to compete with the chosen candidates put up by the officials of the Republicans or Democrats.

We defeat ourselves too. I have heard many people, even in the primaries, vote for the chosen candidate of their party because they don't want to "waste their vote".

As it stands now a candidate for president needs big bucks to acquire name recognition. How can we get around that and back to the idea of our country that "anyone can be president"? I don't have an answer.

Another problem is after the first few primaries the rest are all taken for granted. Usually the problem, again, is money. Other than the chosen few, the others cannot afford to continue. It is all over. It is completely "follow the leader". The people in most of the country are not taking their part in the primaries. And that is the way we get down to the election with choices of "the lesser of two evils".

I don't believe that I have gone "off topic". As Joe has said, banning books is the first step on the slippery slope of more government regulation in our lives. We need to stop it here and now. Perhaps the internet will be the answer to how.
,



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I have to agree with Marhee on her post, is so very true we always get inundated with the main political parties chosen because they hold the biggest election budgets and also the most private funding.

While is many good candidates that can bring new ideas they are never known because most of the time they have to wait until the days prior to election to used whatever funds for their advertisement.

I noticed that in the last elections, while I knew who the main candidates were it was many other candidates that I had not clue who they were.

Sad but we are dominated by only two main parties and so far anybody else doesn't have a chance, so much for democracy.

I also wonder like Dg if Alabama Art museums has much to show at all.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Having read the article, the following can be stated:

What this lawmaker is doing is dictating his point of view of the world on the citizens that he represents. It is a shame and ultimate distasteful that he would demand a review and then the removal of litrature all based on a persons sexuality, without having read or even viewed the content in question.

While he has good reason, his means of doing such is ultiamtely not following either the spirit or the letter of the law. While there are some points that are valid, as there has to be an age appropirateness to what children read, does he have the right to dictate what they can and can not read, even over the childs parents? After all if the state can enact and ban books on this criteria, then it would open the door for the government to not allow one group or section or another, all based off of what they may percieve as to be questionable writing due to the person, and use this law as a means and an excuse to do such.

What would be next the writings of HH the Dali Llama, or the pope, or even Ghandi?

But I guess many of the law makers of Alabama did not see it that was, as it was died, not having enough people there to vote on it.

After all who wants to be standing up in an election and explain why they voted for censorship in a country where the freedom of speech and press are actually the rule of the land?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
why are you reviving a thread from 2005?






top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join