Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment

a reply to: Grimpachi
Fair enough. But therein lies the crux of my comment. When someone like him goes public with something so extreme, that he knows before he even elaborates, it will never become law, my first question is, "What is this guy really after?"

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

TOL JA. We disagree on a great deal I know but THAT ain't me or ANYONE I know .MAYBE could spend 5 minutes around him without DECKING the guy. DON'T do that to your SKULL .

It's almost sad really - the 'pastor' seems to have bottomless oceans of hate for anyone who doesn't believe in the same things that he does.

a reply to: NavyDoc

All your missing is Hitler for the trifecta!

I never said to tell him to shut up, I said make him quit his job, that's what conservatives do when someone is an affront to the ideology.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Like HAUNT here he can't believe in humanity beyond his logic PARADIGM. NO MATTER how many times you tell them they have another NUT to say THIS IS YOU by.I just HATE it, WE got him instead of the KKK or the Neo Nazis.


Can't shoot him either cause then I'd be like HIM.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Grimpachi
Fair enough. But therein lies the crux of my comment. When someone like him goes public with something so extreme, that he knows before he even elaborates, it will never become law, my first question is, "What is this guy really after?"

I think some responses in this thread may be indicative of his real motive and backing, yes?

originally posted by: beezzer
I never realized how much it must irritate the hell out of some people when they can't find anyone that disagrees with an inflamatory OP.


Then lets find other things to fight about!!!

I think you would have realized by now that it's the inflamatory OPs that are the most entertaining, engaging and thought provoking.

Rest assured I'll be on the lookout for other wack job OPs to bring to our attention. btw, I wasn't irritated at all, infact enjoyed the discussion a lot...it's the www. I get irritated when I get a flat or a ticket for no seat belt. Have you noticed there is a huge difference between the cyber world and out in the sunshine??

Then lets find other things to fight about!!!

Precisely!!!

I have a few in mind!!!

Peace out....

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: NavyDoc

All your missing is Hitler for the trifecta!

I never said to tell him to shut up, I said make him quit his job, that's what conservatives do when someone is an affront to the ideology.

No we don't. That's what the left likes to do.

Why don't YOU make him quit his job--he just as much "yours" as he is "ours."

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
Pity the OP couldn't find anyone to actually agree with the pastor's rant.

Actually, there's a post on page two that does agree. And it garnered 3 stars.

Just FYI, I am not, in any way, disappointed that you disagree with the pastor. It gives me hope.

Did you happen to notice that post was also that person's first post on ATS...and they have been a member since 2011. This topic must have really meant something to that person to bring them out of the woodwork after three years.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Don't lump me in with this pastor! I hate all humans, I don't care what gender or race or whatever.

a reply to: HauntWok

WELL KNOCK IT OFF...you'll make more cash..you'll get LAID .you'll love it.
MOVE OUT OF THE BIG CITY fast it causes insanity and things may be SLOWER but once you find the right place there is NOTHING better.
The point here is that guy is off and represents NO One here..unless you feel he is correct which somehow I DO NOT see as a possiblity.
Did you read about that BANKER and what he did?
I wish..

a reply to: cavtrooper7

WELL KNOCK IT OFF...you'll make more cash..you'll get LAID .you'll love it.

Been there, done that, got the divorce.

What banker? He rip someone off? Typical conservative bankers! Screwing everyone over for a buck!

What kind of labor does he expect them to do? Work at a Skittles factory?

Im not sure if i should laugh at the insanity or just beat him with a shoe.

a reply to: HauntWok

Go see what THAT one did, because he wanted to fight Russians in my earlier response,otherwise .YES that is true

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Oh right, the d bag who decided like most conservatives to get involved in [snip] that doesn't involve him and perpetuate more war!

originally posted by: Aural
What kind of labor does he expect them to do? Work at a Skittles factory?

Im not sure if i should laugh at the insanity or just beat him with a shoe.

I like skittles. Taste the rainbow...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
The difference is, I consider an unborn person, a person who simply isn't born yet.

That's fine. That's what YOU consider an unborn. Behave that way in your life. Exercise your personal freedom to treat it as such. Forcing others to behave according to your beliefs is what people have a problem with. Which is what the preacher in the OP is trying to do - force his personal beliefs through law.

So if the government makes a law, using the electroencephalogram and the criteria we currently use to determine human life at the end of life, that provides that an unborn child is indeed a living human with all of the rights thereof as determined by science and not religion, would you be okay with that?

No. I wouldn't.

A living child has to be raised, fed, schooled, loved etc.

When every living child already on this planet has quality of life, including the above mentioned (raised, fed, schooled, loved) ----- then I'll consider thinking about it.

Okay, so quality of life is what determines if someone's life should be ended or not? Should we kill everyone in third world #holes because their life sucks? Genocide in the ghetto? Euthanasia for mentally or physically disabled?

Is that the measuring stick a society should use for ending someone's life and if so, why stop at birth? Why not extend that to little kids who have an awful life?

I don't consider a parasite a living being. Harsh descriptive? Yeah! But, that is what a fetus is.

It is not a viable living being living independently.

Your comparisons don't make sense.

a reply to: Annee

I don't consider a parasite a living being. Harsh descriptive? Yeah! But, that is what a fetus is.

My God !!

Who are you angry at ?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

I don't consider a parasite a living being. Harsh descriptive? Yeah! But, that is what a fetus is.

My God !!

Who are you angry at ?

Sorry you chose the emotional route.

Sounds very "liberal" to me.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


No laws in government should come from a mythical god at all. If someone wants to rule themselves by whatever religion tells them, have at it, but the law must be secular to maintain a free society.

Which is something the Christian right doesn't seem to grasp. And every time you try to enforce this necessary church and state divide, the religious right screams about persecution and demands more of their religious nonsense codified into law. Here is one example of successful, but ultimately, (and thankfully) unenforceable law where religion was written into state constitution, and no effort so far has been made to change them:

7 States that ban atheists from public office

Of course, discrimination against atheists is far more widespread and aggressive as well, compliments of the religious loony right.

Anti-Atheism
Discrimination against Atheists in the U.S.

I find it hysterical any Christian claiming religious persecution in this country. They have every reasonable legal right to practice their religion, even in schools:

Religious Rights

Poor Christian Right. So discriminated and persecuted. /sarcasm.

The truth is, us "godless heathens (i.e atheists, agnostics, ect) honestly do not give a flying monkey *@#$ whether or not people pray to god, Jesus, Shiva, Cthulhu, or the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, and fully support their rights to practice and believe whatever they want. Hell, I even believe people who hate gays, other ethnic groups, other races, other religions, whatever should have the right to hold those beliefs, no matter how offensive. What we object to is when they try to legislate their religion into everyone else's life, and run the country by laws and beliefs that have no basis in science, reality, or reason.

A secular separation of Church and State, and the protection of all belief systems or lack of, is one of the few things separating us from the likes of Iran and Afghanistan.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
The difference is, I consider an unborn person, a person who simply isn't born yet.

That's fine. That's what YOU consider an unborn. Behave that way in your life. Exercise your personal freedom to treat it as such. Forcing others to behave according to your beliefs is what people have a problem with. Which is what the preacher in the OP is trying to do - force his personal beliefs through law.

So if the government makes a law, using the electroencephalogram and the criteria we currently use to determine human life at the end of life, that provides that an unborn child is indeed a living human with all of the rights thereof as determined by science and not religion, would you be okay with that?

No. I wouldn't.

A living child has to be raised, fed, schooled, loved etc.

When every living child already on this planet has quality of life, including the above mentioned (raised, fed, schooled, loved) ----- then I'll consider thinking about it.

Okay, so quality of life is what determines if someone's life should be ended or not? Should we kill everyone in third world #holes because their life sucks? Genocide in the ghetto? Euthanasia for mentally or physically disabled?

Is that the measuring stick a society should use for ending someone's life and if so, why stop at birth? Why not extend that to little kids who have an awful life?

I don't consider a parasite a living being. Harsh descriptive? Yeah! But, that is what a fetus is.

It is not a viable living being living independently.

Your comparisons don't make sense.

Actually a parasite is a living being...it is a living being that is of another species that lives off a host. By definition, a fetus of your own species is not a parasite.

parasite. Biology An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host. a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

It is not an accurate description.

My distinctions make perfect sense. When is it or should it be permissible to kill another person and how are we going to define another person. Certainly our understanding has evolved beyond "if he fogs a mirror, he's alive" in all aspects but one. Why ignore science in this situation? Is it purely a political reason that we do not apply the same science at the beginning of life that we do to the end?

When is economics justification of taking another life? If it is, why complain about banksters who start wars over economics?