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.
Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by seabag
Culture of death, huh? Where've they been on all these wars? Oh, that's right, it's cool because that works out for the church in the long run...less oppositional belief systems if there are less Muslims...
Originally posted by mactheaxe
well, here's my say. cuz, we all have a say right? I was unsure of the catholic church, now im convinced. The message of, gloves are off, we dont get along so now were gonna do battle told me i am happy to not be catholic. i do not believe in being high and mighty and being so confrontational. i respect everyone and he is just another ideological figure banking on the belief of heaven reigning down at his blessed word. the fact is this. abortion is not mandatory. if a woman wants to, then that is her choice, not the church or our govt. period. he made some pretty big accusations and whats with calling her the same as the nazis? last i checked she didnt have 6 million starving pregnant women thrown in a camp waiting for their forced abortions. And does this mean he spoke for the church? did they endorse this video? cuz he talked like his gang is snappin in action.
War is political. It is about power and control.
“'Civil rights' doesn't mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1
The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.
The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy
So..... if a group represents the homeless, that group should not have a voice? Take religion out of this, would that group have a right to representation, yes or no?
Little direct evidence has been uncovered to date that she herself specifically drew the distinction between the "fit" and the "unfit" along racial lines.
The Negro Project is the most questionable activity of Sanger regarding race. In 1939, the Birth Control Federation of America initiated the project, which was to promote family planning among the black population of the South, using black ministers. A letter to Clarence Gamble says: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." www.angelafranks.com...
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
So..... if a group represents the homeless, that group should not have a voice? Take religion out of this, would that group have a right to representation, yes or no?
Why would we take religion out of it...it is the main topic???
Our Constitution has specific language in it regarding religion...it doesn't for the homeless.
Like I said, I have no problem with a group having a voice...but religion should be left out of government.
Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?
As long as the actual orginzation of the Church isn't lobbying...it's fine.
This shouldn't be hard to understand...it is one of the basic tenants the country was founded on. They did not want the Church to be involved with the government just as much as they didn't want the government involved with the Church....maybe even more so.
Originally posted by AuranVector
Catholics have the right to believe as they do and the Federal government has NO RIGHT to force Catholics to do things against their religious principles.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
Sorry, I don't understand the basis for that. You are saying a religious group doesn't have the right to lobby for its convictions. You do not say any other group should also not have the right to voice their opnion. Where do you propose the line is drawn? So if a group expresses its voice behind a religious group you believe it should be ignored - correct? If another group expresses the same voice under the collective group of a non religious group it should be listened to, even though the actual content is the same, is that what you believe?
As long as the actual orginzation of the Church isn't lobbying...it's fine.
This shouldn't be hard to understand...it is one of the basic tenants the country was founded on. They did not want the Church to be involved with the government just as much as they didn't want the government involved with the Church....maybe even more so.
Not true, our ancestors came to America to get away from religious
persecution.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by colbe
I have posted twice in another thread the page in Obama Care that speaks of the implantation of the micro-chip. Leftists do not reply.
People don't respond because it is crazy talk with no factual basis to it.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by colbe
Not true, our ancestors came to America to get away from religious
persecution.
You seriously need a history lesson.
Go research and find the answer to WHO was persecuting them? Why couldn't they practice their religion like they wanted to?
It couldn't be that a certain church controlled the government...was it?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Go research and find the answer to WHO was persecuting them? Why couldn't they practice their religion like they wanted to?
It couldn't be that a certain church controlled the government...was it?