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.

 

Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

page: 18
4
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Ok then you think its fine for us to protest weddings and funerals on public property cause we don't like the message of owning a woman .


Obviously you're unfamiliar with the reality of modern marriage, which is quite the opposite of this.



Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Christians currently are not true Christians; they are a variation of their own religion, defying their own religious motives. That alone should give you a clue they are not to be reasoned with or taken seriously.


Quite the broad brush you're painting with there don't ya think? Careful trying to label peoples beliefs for them. When you lean down from that high horse with the paint brush, it's easy to fall.


Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Again: Any argument that needs something that has nothing to do with it to stand on its own feet isn’t much of an argument, and any person who needs such an argument has little merit.



Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I don’t think I’ve ever so amusingly seen a pot calling a kettle black.


What more is there to say?




posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 
considering that the judge was simply saying that the Gays had the same constitutional rights as the Christians and that if Gays did the same thing at a Christian gathering they could be subjected to the same treatment I really don't understand the beef of the Philadelphia 11. It is only Christians that think they are above the law when it comes to prosylization. It is a federal offense to put tracts in the post office or proselytize on any government grounds yet Christians do it all the time. Once I brought that up to a postmaster after finding 30 tracts on various shelves in the main area by the post boxes and she told me they did not enforce the rules. she thought it was perfectly ok to annoy others with such behavior. When Christians accept that they are not above obeying the laws of the land anymore than anyone else is then other religious or non religious groups will be less likely to be "militant" in behavior toward them. You are the only manifestation in the flesh of the God you worship and if you give Him/Her/It a bad name how can you expect to win converts to your cause?




posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Ok then you think its fine for us to protest weddings and funerals on public property cause we don't like the message of owning a woman .


Obviously you're unfamiliar with the reality of modern marriage, which is quite the opposite of this.




You mean the same marriage . That if comes to a divorce ruins your credit . score ?
Who's warning these people about this? Is it not my duty ?

Divorce and Your Credit Score


Divorce and Your Credit Score A reality plaguing married couples today is the increasing divorce rate. Unfortunately, the results that follow a divorce may be worse than the dissolution of the marriage itself. Many side effects of divorce include loss of money, credit issues, depression and personal bankruptcy. Couples who divorce are more likely to experience financial complications in the months and years following the divorce. Perhaps this is because more couples are experiencing money problems even before the marriage dissolved, which potentially caused the divorce. Maybe it is just too difficult for them to adjust from two incomes to one and still maintain the same amount of monthly debt. In any event, there is no denying that divorce and money problems often coincide. Individuals who are recently divorced or who are considering it should take several factors into consideration regarding divorce and their credit score. Even if the other person is primarily to blame, simply obtaining a divorce will not protect someone from mounting financial problems.



I have chosen to not partake in religious things so as not to be a hypocrite.
And i don't agree with ruining there day . Albeit i am against what it stands for .
I was merely looking for confirmation that it IS within my free speech as outlined by the definition in this thread.

I mean come on these people are doing horrible dances . Tossing flowers as superstitions . And the guarder belt thing . That is not sexual ?

Whores dressing in white. . Well you get the point i think . Just cause i don't like the idea of it . I have the right to try and warn the people involved of what i think . Even if its going to ruin the day ?

Again . I don't think its "right" but if i read the thread correctly . It IS within my rights.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ephiram-Lo
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


That's pretty much the gist of it, really. First Amdenment/Section Seven rights are fine and great, but having them isn't carte blanche to do wrong on others.

I'm amazed that that much even had to be decided by a court, really. Hereabouts people are just expected to know not to make jerks of themselves.


This is true. And I've always said it: for each and every "freedom", there is paired an equally heavy and weighty responsibility. And one does not deserve the freedom if they cannot also shoulder that responsibility. This is only simple logic.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EverythingYouDespise
Gay rights = the rights for consenting adults to bang each other.
Christian rights = the rights to prevent strangers from doing with each other whatever they want.

See the difference?

With that said, I don't think taxpayer money should be spent on this sort of stupidity.


Actually, TRUE Christianity would be more like "the right to not practice the wrong act oneself". And forcing that morality on someone else would in fact be wrong. But "true" Christianity has not been around for at least 1500 years or more.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Getting back to the original topic, I think that gay rights do indeed trump christian rights. After all, nobody forced christianity on you. You chose it yourself, along with any attendant consequences. No gay person on the other hand chose to be gay, they were born that way. For the gay man or woman being gay is quite natural and wholesome. Gay rights are therefore more fundamental than religious rights.

Now I know the christian dead-enders won't agree with that but why should we take seriously grown men and women who cling to an imaginary friend?



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
Getting back to the original topic, I think that gay rights do indeed trump christian rights. After all, nobody forced christianity on you. You chose it yourself, along with any attendant consequences. No gay person on the other hand chose to be gay, they were born that way. For the gay man or woman being gay is quite natural and wholesome. Gay rights are therefore more fundamental than religious rights.

Now I know the christian dead-enders won't agree with that but why should we take seriously grown men and women who cling to an imaginary friend?


That is a wonderfully intelligent viewpoint.

And correct.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
 


Good grief!
I was simply making a joke about the fact that far from being 'owned', women seem to be the ones in control of the marriages these days. A view supported by your divorce babbling. Comprende’ joke?


Originally posted by mike3
"true" Christianity has not been around for at least 1500 years or more.


There has ever been only a remnant. Christianity was infiltrated and corrupted right from the very beginning, but there has always been, and there remains a remnant.


Originally posted by Lilitu
Now I know the Christian dead-enders won't agree with that but why should we take seriously grown men and women who cling to an imaginary friend?


Bigotry at its finest. I wonder why you don't have any links to anti Muslim, Hindu or Judaism sites in your sig?

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor

Bigotry at its finest. I wonder why you don't have any links to anti Muslim, Hindu or Judaism sites in your sig?


I just have to jump in here. I personally do not find it odd that in this country a person focuses on Christianity. I suspect they probably feel the same way about all similar organized religious beliefs.

Just my logical opinion.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by resistor

Bigotry at its finest. I wonder why you don't have any links to anti Muslim, Hindu or Judaism sites in your sig?


I just have to jump in here. I personally do not find it odd that in this country a person focuses on Christianity. I suspect they probably feel the same way about all similar organized religious beliefs.

Just my logical opinion.


Assuming, and then speaking for another through such assumption is logical? Opinion, yes. Logical, no.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


Quite the broad brush you're painting with there don't ya think? Careful trying to label peoples beliefs for them. When you lean down from that high horse with the paint brush, it's easy to fall.

Not at all, just a factual observation. If you'd care to counter it with something tangible please create another thread and I'll be more than happy to meet you there, all of us participating in this one have steered it off course enough.

I'd don't ride horses, but thanks for the tip.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Amazing how peoples pure opinions often look like accurate observations to their own eyes. I'll decline the poo slinging offer, thanks anyway, but if you don't even get the high horse reference, there's even less point than usual. BTW, acting superior may make you feel that way, but it doesn't actually make you superior, in fact it make you look compensatory.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


If you didn’t get my sarcasm I’d feel bad for you, but I know you did, you simply chose to ignore it for whatever reason. If all you can do is sling personal attacks my way instead of debating an actual issue then you are a waste of time.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor

Assuming, and then speaking for another through such assumption is logical? Opinion, yes. Logical, no.


Why not logical? Atheism covers all god beliefs.

Christians certainly express that America is a Christian nation. I am 60+ years old. It is only recently major media has even focused on and discussed other religions. When I was a kid there were a few Jewish families - - but it was like a secret. It was never talked about or mentioned.

And did you watch the video? It includes other religions.

So again - - in America I find no fault in only referencing the Christian religion to make your point of Atheism.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
Assuming, and then speaking for another through such assumption is logical? Opinion, yes. Logical, no.


Ah but she is right. I do feel the same about all religions. They are all damnable frauds. Here in the states however most religious delusion addicts are christians and they are by far the most annoying and egotistical. Their grandiose sense of entitlement is beyond anything I have ever witnessed. Sure there are muslims, jews, buddhists, hindus, etc. here in the states but they by and large do not force their religion or views down others throats. They for the most part keep to themselves. Christians are another matter entirely. There isn't a week that goes by that I am not accosted by some stuporous evangelical who cannot take "NO" for an answer. Never mind the fact that given their way they would enforce their vulgar delusions upon society as a whole by force of law. That simply cannot be permitted to happen no matter what the cost. Nobody who believes in such things as talking snakes and imaginary beings possessed of fantastic powers has any business directing anyone or anything in public life. They shouldn't even be allowed to have children.



[edit on 24-7-2008 by Lilitu]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 



. . all religions. They are all damnable frauds. Here in the states however most religious delusion addicts are christians and they are by far the most annoying and egotistical. Their grandiose sense of entitlement is beyond anything I have ever witnessed. Sure there are muslims, jews, buddhists, hindus, etc. here in the states but they by and large do not force their religion or views down others throats. They for the most part keep to themselves. Christians are another matter entirely.


Excellent and pithy observations. I was born before WarTwo and frankly I thought religion would be "gone" by now. But alas, it is WORSE today than it was between the end of War 2 and the end of the Vietnam War. Power crazed megalomaniacs will not give up easy. It is no wonder preachers are mixing into politics in a way and to an extent that was verboten in the 1940s and into the 1950s. Preachers and politicians share the same deformed personalities. Sure, I'm voting for Obama. I'm not saying he will do 40% of what needs to be done, but if I voted for McCain he wuold do no more than 10% of what needs to be done. To put it bluntly, we need to do more SHARE THE WEALTH. Call it by any name you want but this is the underlying issue of all issues. The R&Fs - rich and famous - are not going to go quietly into the night! And religion is their complicit compadre. I say this based on a long time observign: When your salary reaches 6 figures, you are MORE interested in that than in any other thing. Human nature.

Deny Ignorance!


Over the years, a circle of Copeland's relatives and friends have done just that, The Associated Press has found. They include the brother-in-law with a lucrative deal to broker Copeland's television time, the son who acquired church-owned land for his ranching business and saw it more than quadruple in value, and board members who together have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking at church events.

Church officials say no one improperly benefits through ties to Copeland's vast evangelical ministry, which claims more than 600,000 subscribers in 134 countries to its flagship "Believer's Voice of Victory" magazine. The board of directors signs off on important matters, they say. Yet church bylaws give Copeland veto power over board decisions.

While Copeland insists that his ministry complies with the law, independent tax experts who reviewed information obtained by the AP through interviews, church documents and public records have their doubts. The web of companies and non-profits tied to the televangelist calls the ministry's integrity into question, they say.

"There are far too many relatives here," said Frances Hill, a University of Miami law professor who specializes in nonprofit tax law. "There's too much money sloshing around and too much of it sloshing around with people with overlapping affiliations and allegiances by either blood or friendship or just ties over the years. There are red flags all over these relationships."

Copeland, 71, is a pioneer of the prosperity gospel, which holds that believers are destined to flourish spiritually, physically and financially — and share the wealth with others. His ministry's 1,500-acre campus, behind an iron gate a half-hour drive from Fort Worth, is testament to his success. It includes a church, a private airstrip, a hangar for the ministry's $17.5 million jet and other aircraft, and a $6 million church-owned lakefront mansion.

Kenneth Copeland Ministries is organized under the tax code as a church, so it gets a layer of privacy not afforded large secular and religious nonprofit groups that must disclose budgets and salaries. Pastors' pay must be "reasonable" under the federal tax code, a term that gives churches wide latitude.

Copeland's current salary is not made public by his ministry. However, the church disclosed in a property-tax exemption application that his wages were $364,577 in 1995; Copeland's wife, Gloria, earned $292,593. It's not clear whether those figures include other earnings, such as special offerings for guest preaching or book royalties. Another 13 Copeland relatives were on the church's payroll that year.

news.yahoo.com...


This is NOT the only example. EVERY big time TV evangelist and Mega Church preacher is a Money Monger First and only and capitalizing on the IGNORANCE of his followers. IF you see them on TV they are CROOKS. NO exceptions. Amazing. Come quick Sweet Jesus!

[edit on 7/27/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
"The evil one". This term sounds primitive and medieval. Man is "evil" when he is hateful towards another.

This is what I detest about "religious" people, they are constantly telling everyone how they should act, think, feel and behave. If two consenting adults fall in love what in the sam hill business of yours is it!

One's sexual preference should be a private matter.

If two consenting adults fall in love and commit to a relationship YES they should be allowed the tax benefits, marriage contracts and everything else a hetrosexual couple get.

I'm so tired of pompous religious fundalmentalists trying to dictate how they think everyone should live the very personal parts of their lives out.

People being so darn judgemental and hateful are the very aspects of what is wrong with humanity and have caused all the hell and heartbreak on this planet.

LIVE AND LET LIVE

If each of us sweeps in front of our own steps, the whole world will be clean - Goethe

[edit on 2-8-2008 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 



If each of us sweeps in front of our own steps, the whole world will be clean - Goethe


2 “P’s.” Pithy! If not poignant! I tried once to read the best plays of Goethe but as in my effort with all German writers, I could not sustain my interest. Including Kant, Marx, Freud and worst of all, Hitler! But I do like this quote.



"The evil one". This term sounds primitive and medieval. Man is "evil" when he is hateful towards another. This is what I detest about "religious" people, they are constantly telling everyone how they should act, think, feel and behave.


Exactly. I am not anti-Catholic per se. I concede it is the longest lived institution in the West other than prostitution. But it is more particularly absurd than its off-shoot, Protestantism. Although denied, it is polytheistic on its face and ridiculous to the extreme.

Consider the RCC’s claims surrounding the central feature of its method of worship, the Eucharist. Blithely asserting the crackers and wine is are transformed - their word is transubstantiation - into the literal body and blood of Jesus. The consumption of which is surely cannibalism. Protestantism proves this patently false claim is unnecessary to the survival of the Faith, them saying the Last Supper is only “representational.”

I cannot help but to make 2 more observations about Roman Catholicism. Mother Teresa was on her way to canonization into the Army of Saints the Catholics so much enjoy. But as they read her private writings they discovered she was an atheist! Being Catholic - Jesuitical - the Church Fathers said that PROVED she was a saint! Most people will agree she acted in a “saintly” way towards her fellow humans. Whether or not she is about to sit beside Jesus is a claim an old Egyptian would better understand than a modern educated human being.

Observation Number 2. John Paul 2. The late Pope. The man who Catholics want to claim subdued the Soviet Union and liberated Eastern Europe. Just him and GOD. Mostly HIM. See Note 1. Over here we have an equally misguided cadre of followers who make the same unfounded claim for the late Ronald Reagan. Two notable men, same overly ambitious claim by their over-eager adherents.

The Cold War is usually dated from March 5, 1946 when Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech at Fulton, Missouri. President Truman broke the Berlin Blockade. President Eisenhower fomented the Hungarian Revolt. President Kennedy successfully maneuvered us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Johnson mistakenly thought he was fighting international communism in Vietnam. President Nixon reopened relations with China as a counter-weight to the USSR. President Ford handled well the Mayagüez incident in 1975. President Carter managed the return of the Panama Canal to Panamanian control and he arranged the peace between Israel and Egypt. Both steps gave us a leg up on the Soviets in the propaganda war waged around the world.

This is not to deny that both JP2 and RR made significant and on-going contributions to the final demise of the USSR. Their's were just two more in a long series of unrelenting Western efforts to overcome their nemesis, communism and its promise of sharing the wealth with the poor. A no-no in Western capitalism.

We should not overlook the internal limits inherent to the Soviet system. Nor should we discount the efforts of NATO and the EEU - predecessor to the EU. The resurgence of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan spoke sharply against the USSR's goal of world domination. To claim a shipyard worker in a backwater country like Poland and a priest made pope brought on the downfall of the worlds #2 superpower is to re-write history and amounts to the denial of reality.

We humans are wont to give too much credit to one man when thinking about colossal events. I think the Nobel Committee awarded the 1990 Peace Prize to Mikhail Gorbachev on very good grounds. See Note 2.



If two consenting adults fall in love what in the sam hill business of yours is it! One's sexual preference should be a private matter. If two consenting adults fall in love and commit to a relationship YES they should be allowed the tax benefits, marriage contracts and everything else a heterosexual couple get.


Your’s is a voice of reason and tolerance, two traits the religious are notoriously in short supply of. Perhaps a new day is dawning in this presidential election. We have the OLD way urged on us by John McCain, and we have the NEW way of life offered to us by of all people, Barack Obama. This is the first time in my life the public can make a SEA CHANGE on election day! I sincerely hope we make the CORRECT choice. The Dems brought the country through the Great Depression in 1932 with the most unlikely candidate, a crippled man bound to a wheelchair. The Dems can do it again with another most unlikely candidate. Able to bring us out of this Reagan Revolution meltdown re-run in 2008! For your peace of mind and to get it done, vote the straight Democratic ticket!



I'm so tired of pompous religious fundamentalists trying to dictate how they think everyone should live the very personal parts of their lives out. People being so darn judgmental and hateful are the very aspects of what is wrong with humanity and have caused all the hell and heartbreak on this planet. LIVE AND LET LIVE


Well said! If we mind our own business, we will not have time to mind other people’s business! United we stand, Divided we fall!


Note 1.
John Paul II was no doubt an outstanding pope. If Catholics think he ought to be canonized, that is their choice to make. I understand Pope Benedict XVI has put JP2 on the “fast track” to sainthood. They have hit a snag. Catholic Church rules - not GOD’s rules - require TWO miracles! A miracle being defined as a contradiction of the law of nature attributable to the intervention of the person to be canonized. In the old days when we did not know even where the wind came from, that was always easy to find.

Look at the Fatima Miracle for example. 1917. There in a poor remote Portuguese village 3 very young girls claimed a visitation by the Virgin Mary. I mean every good Catholic child wanted to see the Virgin! As proof of this visitation, a crowd was assembled and the Sun not only stood still but actually “danced” in the sky. Those uneducated people knew nothing of the Laws of Physics. That it was the Earth that revolved about the Sun and not the other way around. Mass hypnosis. That’s all. No miracle. en.wikipedia.org...

In 2008, the Church has a real problem finding 2 miracles the world will not scoff. And thereby to denigrate the genuine contributions of JP2. Intelligent people no longer believe in miracles. Now is the time for the RCC to DROP that old medieval mishmash and just say: “He was an exceptional man and in our faith, we want him venerated.” We hereby declare him henceforth and forever more to be a SAINT! Why not tell the truth for a change? What a way to start a new millennium!

Note 2.
The National Constitution Center announced Former Soviet leader and Nobel Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev will be awarded the 2008 Liberty Medal. Center officials said Friday that Gorbachev earned the medal for his role in helping to end the Cold War and giving hope to millions living behind the Iron Curtain.

President George H.W. Bush, Chairman of the National Constitution Center, will present Gorbachev with the award during a ceremony on Thursday, September 18. "It is a true honor for me to participate in this year's Liberty Medal ceremony to celebrate the achievements of someone whom I consider a great world leader and a dear friend," Bush said in a statement released by the National Constitution Center.

The National Constitution Center gives the annual award to individuals or organizations whose actions represent the founding principles of the United States. [I admit to surprise that Bush Sr did not push for some off-setting and simultaneous recognition of Reagan but then again, who knew Ronnie better than George? Added on edit]
cbs3.com...

[edit on 8/2/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
This kind of stuff has been going on for years.Gay's discriminating against anyone who doesn't follow thier lead.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
This kind of stuff has been going on for years.Gay's discriminating against anyone who doesn't follow thier lead.




top topics



 
4
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join