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.

 

Santorum jumps the shark. Pledges to make porn illegal

page: 30
58
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
And here I was, thinking he was making a poor attempt at disparagement. Thanks for clearing that up. Being a hillbilly, we never had those sorts of "born agains" around when I was growing up, and I've not run into any out in the big bad world since leaving them there hills, so I had no idea what he was talking about.

Actually, wiki relates:

The Gallup Organization reported that "In 2003, 42% of U.S. adults said they were born-again or evangelical; the 2004 percentage is 41%." Also, "Black Americans are far more likely to identify themselves as born-again or evangelical, with 63% of blacks saying they are born-again, compared with 39% of white Americans. " and "Republicans are far more likely to say they are born-again (52%) than Democrats (36%) or independents (32%) en.wikipedia.org...


No disparagement intended, though perhaps a flippant observation. And snakes? Personally, I like to think that there are two types of Christians...with and without snakes. I really do have a live and let live attitude towards other folk's beliefs though I detest insistent proselytizing and folks who violate their own religious dictates by looking down upon those who do not share their particular convictions. Not that any of those smug arses are posting on this thread...
...just sayin'.

Love the Papists or not...Catholics are indeed Christians.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by nenothtu
 


neno,

Hey, you shouldn't mock the faith and non-Catholic Christianity. We're
in the end times, these are serious times. No matter what period of time
it is, no one knows their last day.

Instead, pray, ask God to give you the faith to believe, He will.

Frank Sinatra is/was Roman Catholic, he died a Roman Catholic. I am
positive he received the Last Rites. Oh, the 'grace' of the Sacraments.

Come to belief brother.


God bless you,



colbe


Hiya, colbe!

Fear not, I have my faith, arrived at after a lot of searching. It's just not one that I wear on my sleeve or push on others. They have their own journey to complete, and if they want to know about my religion, they will ask - I don't have a need to jam it up on them usually.

I rejected Catholicism, particularly Roman Catholicism, for the much the same reasons I left Islam - lack of consistency and illogical beliefs. I don't demand "proofs" in matters of religion, because the nature of religion is such that poofs are not to be had on demand. God does not subject himself to experimentation very well, nor does he tend to jump through hoops on command like a trained dog. I DO, however, expect that a particular belief should be consistent in it's own logic, within the framework of the system.

For example, in Catholicism the belief that the Bible is inerrant is inconsistent with the belief that Church Dogma carries equal or greater weight. If you have an inerrant book, a literal word of God, the pronouncements of man cannot countermand it - that is illogical - OR that god is a very weak one, unworthy of worship.

What religion Sinatra found peace in is his own business, not mine. I examined it, and found it lacking for my own peace. I do not want Catholic Last Rites, since I do not expect nor desire to go to the Catholic heaven.

As far as "End Times" go, every one has his own. We will ALL come to and end at some point, and mine is likely a good deal closer than yours. I'm at peace with that. Don't look for a cataclysmic end, just be prepared for your own, and be at peace when it finds you.

I came to belief some time ago.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson
reply to post by colbe
 


Your god does not run this country. This country does not revolve around your god. If you want to avoid contraceptives and pornography you are free to do it. Stop trying to promote the legislation of your religion.

Santorum is insane. I am watching his speech right now. Mr. Ban pornography talks about a return to a smaller government that does not dictate how you live your lives and he went on to suggest that here in the warmest winter of my lifetime that the climate has changed in a way proving global warming was wrong. Every other sentence is complete jackassery.


I won't go into the "global warming" debate, since we will assuredly butt heads, and it's not the topic here, but speaking to the notion of "smaller government", how can he consistently promote such a notion while proposing yet MORE restrictive legislation out of the other side of his mouth?

I'm all for smaller government, but making restrictive new laws seems an illogical way to arrive at one.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Santorum is a dead duck in the water. He's failed. His statements have shot him in the foot. Mitt will win the GOP nomination, and then be utterly destroyed in the debates, followed by the general election. The only way either of these men win is if TPTB wish them too. Then it's election fraud all over again.

You can't stop something as base as porn. Should it be monitored, and insured that nothing highly inapproperate is displayed for all innocent eyes to see? Sure.

Also, a good method of that is to monitor your child's internet, so that they don't. As for adults, if you don't know better, I doubt the term "adult" fits".

I find it amazing anyone is still even talking about Rick, but I think this tread as come down to more the ethics of if porn is "good or bad". To that I say, there is nothing wrong with porn. It's a healthy outlet, that alot of healthy couples use to "spice things up" as it were.

Are there indecent pornographic images out there? You bet. You know how you can shut that down? Don't watch. All sites offer a report opition if you were looking for something that isn't concidering indecent, and if something claims to be cool, then shows you something you never wished to view, it's two clicks away from being flagged.

Only through the actions of the citizen (in this case, the citizens of the internet), can we approperately monitor while allowing freedom of speech. Of all places, I have to believe this forum gets that.

So in conculsion, let's all face the fact that Rick doesn't represent anything other than close minded repressiveness, while opening up a debate that has far more merit than his campaign.

Also, off topic, you guys should really check out the "will the real Mitt Romney please stand up" vid posted on this site. It left me laughing pretty hard, and I think it will any of you too.

Good postings and God bless.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok

On the other hand, I don't want Cannon Law to dictate what I can do with MY life. Cannon Law is just like Sharia Law, it has no place in our government. We cannot allow religious dictates to determine our legislation. And we as a people need to understand that there is a time and a place for politics, and a time and a place for religion. These two things should not ever be combined, nor should we elect people who would force their personal religious beliefs upon the masses.



Absolutely. Since the Bible says something along the lines of "render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God those things which belong to him", an honest Christian would have to keep religion and politics separate.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I see. By "born agains" you meant "evangelicals". Yeah, there are lots of them around, but they're pretty harmless if you just learn how to slam a door. I don't subscribe to their peculiar beliefs, either, but to each his own.

Regarding the Snake Handlers, they're ok as long as they keep it in their churches. Not my problem what method of suicide they choose. I've run across them, having been raised in Appalachia, but they're not very prevalent. When I was in high school, I worked as a DJ at a radio station, and part of my gig was to run the board for the Sunday morning religious programming. The shows were all live except for one, which was taped earlier, and one fine spring morning some Snake Handlers brought a wood and screen wire box of rattlers into the radio station..

Some times, you just have to draw a line. I threw them out, cancelled their show, and told them it could be reinstated whenever they showed back up without a box of snakes.

That was when I learned that another man's religious freedom does not trump my freedom not to be snake-bit. the same principle applies to Santorum's rhetoric. He's free NOT to surf porn if he so chooses, but he is not free to restrict the freedoms of others based upon his own understanding of "religion" or "religious freedoms".



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


You are absolutely correct Karen! Thanks!
Line 2.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The whole "What qualifies as""hardcore" remains unclear" has me flummoxed. Is there some social general consensus out there that I don't know about? Does anyone here know what is Officially "hardcore porn"? Or, are we stuck with Mr. Santorums definition? Which then begs the obvious question... How the hell was he able to come up with a consensus on what is hardcore and what is not? I'll bet he is an expert.


See, you got to set up a committee where a bunch of men sit in a room and watch every single video from every single porn, and surf the web all day and night to decide what is hard and what is not hard.
its a tough job...luckily it pays well..good benefits also.
It can be a work from home job though, so thats an added advantage.

I applied


See?

I knew it!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I see. By "born agains" you meant "evangelicals".


I am pretty sure that by "Born agains" he meant "born agains."
Why are you so resistant to this?
Born again is not a slight or derision. It is a name they gave themselves.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I see. By "born agains" you meant "evangelicals".


I am pretty sure that by "Born agains" he meant "born agains."
Why are you so resistant to this?
Born again is not a slight or derision. It is a name they gave themselves.


If that be the case, then I must say again that I have never run across one, which is a marvel if they are as prevalent as claimed.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Aw...it may cost me points and a reproof from the mods...but I can't resist.
Sorry Rick, the Devil made me do it!




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

If that be the case, then I must say again that I have never run across one, which is a marvel if they are as prevalent as claimed.



For one thing I find it hard to believe you have never heard of a "born again Christian." I would like to see the rock you have been under. For another thing, what is your problem? Why are you arguing the term? You say you never heard it before, now you have. Why are you arguing about it? Do you think that if you have not heard of something, it must not exist? There are people that refer to themselves as born again Christians, they are usually known as born again Christians. Google it, go outside and talk to people, go visit one of their churches. Anything but going on and on in post after post about how much trouble you are having with this term. Now you have heard it. You learned something new. You are a big boy that can google the term. Are you going to be ok?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by nenothtu

If that be the case, then I must say again that I have never run across one, which is a marvel if they are as prevalent as claimed.



For one thing I find it hard to believe you have never heard of a "born again Christian."


I have heard of "born again Christians", but not "born agains". Nor have I ever met any Christians who would identify themselves as "born agains". They generally refer to their denomination as their religious identity.



I would like to see the rock you have been under.


No you wouldn't. It's dark and scary, and there are spiders.



For another thing, what is your problem? Why are you arguing the term?


Because you are. I had already made my peace with JohnnyCanuck over it, but you seem oddly unable to let that be, and insist on misusing it. It's a prepositional phrase, not a noun. If you haven't reached those distinctions in your English class, ask your teacher what the difference is.

Does that bridge keep the rain off of your head?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





I have heard of "born again Christians", but not "born agains". Nor have I ever met any Christians who would identify themselves as "born agains". They generally refer to their denomination as their religious identity.


Who cares? Everyone here gets what's meant if someone says "born agains", just like everyone gets it whenever I type "fundies"



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I have heard of "born again Christians", but not "born agains". Nor have I ever met any Christians who would identify themselves as "born agains". They generally refer to their denomination as their religious identity.

Who cares? Everyone here gets what's meant if someone says "born agains", just like everyone gets it whenever I type "fundies"


Originally posted by LErickson
You learned something new. You are a big boy that can google the term. Are you going to be ok?


Folks? Can we cut the guy a little slack and return to the main issue? Manners are starting to erode just a little here, and over such small potatoes.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Eh. Never mind. I'll just grit my teeth and see what happens.





edit on 2012/3/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Yeah I gotta get me one of those tshirts



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join