Moived post's from below so we may get back on the origional track.
Now for the .000005% of the Nation that doesn't know about the SCOTUS decision reference "gay" marriage, I have given it a thread of it's own.
Here you may agree with "Libby" our resident progressive / liberal, or decent as you please, so fire away.
I would however remind ALL of you that if you plan to cast aspersions on someone you MUST sign your real name, or forget the post as I will remove it as soon as I see it.
Tom Ford
NO. 2012
Here you may agree with "Libby" our resident progressive / liberal, or decent as you please, so fire away.
I would however remind ALL of you that if you plan to cast aspersions on someone you MUST sign your real name, or forget the post as I will remove it as soon as I see it.
Tom Ford
NO. 2012
posted by Crestwood Independent at 05:16
82 Comments:
Anonymous said...
very proud of our Supreme Court today. They got that one right.
9:53 AM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Blogger Crestwood Independent said...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/in-supreme-court-gay-marriage-decision-justices-reach-for-equality-20130626
What's next?
Tom Ford
11:20 AM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I hope what's next is getting the states to abide by federal law, and refusing to allow further discrimination of an entire group of people. We are not Nazi Germany. Every American should be deeply ashamed that our core values are shredded every time a couple is told "you can't get married because you're gay". Sounds way too close to "you can't own that store because you're Jewish.". Or, "you can't drive that car because you're a woman." We are better than that, darn it. We aren't supposed to operate that way.
12:06 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
You can't have this job because we need to hire more minorities and you are not one.
1:51 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
12:06 PM June 26th
Just out of curiousity, can you define what "our core values" are?
Your statement assumes everyone shares these values, but without knowing the values to which you refer, it's hard to evaluate your statement.
Martha Duchild
Crestwood Independent said...
12:06 PM Blogger: Do you really, really believe that Bravo Sierra you just spouted?
I know that's the touchy feely liberal / progressive mantra, but DO YOU really believe it, and if so please give me an example of why that is verifiable!
Tom Ford
3:29 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"all men are created equal"....
"Liberty and justice for all"...
"The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...
These are core American values, I think, and to discriminate against anyone goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to have given that up when everyone won the right to vote.
So yes, I believe that "bravo sierra" I just spouted. I would be surprised that you don't believe that.
4:18 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Blogger Crestwood Independent said...
4:18 PM Blogger: Well we now know at least three things about you, that being your a liberal and you have a great deal of liberal guilt to assuage.
You also believe your own "Bravo Sierra" which is always dangerous to say the least.
Now, that said, you seem to have forgotten a couple of things here like, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," (you do support that in it's entirety, right?) and, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ETC."
Now, what I asked (and you skirted) is what's next? Do you now get to marry your tropical fish? Just how much is too much? Where does it stop with your liberal faction?
Tom Ford
Tom Ford
5:37 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Won't happen tomorrow, but wouldn't surprise me to see polygamy legalized in our lifetimes.
5:41 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
5:37 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Won't happen tomorrow, but wouldn't surprise me to see polygamy legalized in our lifetimes.
5:41 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
5:51 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
the right to bear arms has NOTHING to do with marriage equality. Marrying fish is so ludicrous it doesn't deserve an answer.
Perhaps you approve of and support systematic, government sanctioned discrimination, but I do not. It is your right. It is my right to believe that I will vote against the American Taliban, and that those who wish to live under religious law should investigate a move to Saudi Arabia. Even our most famous Founder got it:
“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition … In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
Government supported bigotry is not something I will ever, ever support, no matter who it's against, and no matter whether I agree with the other person's life style or choices.
6:46 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Blogger Crestwood Independent said...
6:46 PM Blogger: Oop's, your slip is showing libby . The second amendment has everything to do with gay marriage.
You can't just pick and choose, you have to support them both, or none!
I know it's a failing among liberals, but what's good for the goose, so to speak.
I pray that you don't have too many fish, woulden't want jealousy you know!
Tom Ford
8:00 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
And your bigotry is showing, tea bagger.you actually stand by statements like that, likening another person to a fish?? I see why state-run discrimination is okay by you. Buh-bye.
8:32 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I guess the question that wasn't asked, which I am curious about, is why do you care if gay people get married? What possible difference does it make to you?
8:50 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Blogger Crestwood Independent said...
8:32 PM Blogger: Libby, only three posts for you to run ou of ammo and start name calling. Yo!ou so very predictable.
Now, try and get me out of that head of yours so you can sleep tonight (and NOT with the fishes!)
Tom Ford
By the by, are we afraid to post our real name, or just to ashamed?
9:00 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
What "religious" law are you willing to live with out,
"thou shall not commit murder"
"Thou shall not steal"
Are you ok with living in a country where those two religious laws are not inplace?
How about "thou shall not bear false witness"? Want go to be tried in a court where it's not against the law to lie when called to give testimony against you? You're ok
with that?
9:25 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
actually, most people don't require a church to tell them what is morally acceptable.
I have called no one names.
the 8:50 post is mine, so why are you being unpleasant? And furthermore, you didn't answer my question: how do gay people getting married affect you personally? I don't have a horse in this race, I am honestly just curious why you seem to have such strong feelings on the subject.
11:45 PM, June 26, 2013
Delete
Blogger Crestwood Independent said...
11:45 PM Blogger: To whom do you direct your question?
Tom Ford
5:04 AM, June 27, 2013
Delete
By the way, I wouldn't say this is a rousing victory as it only affects the three States that have gay marriage, there are still 47 that do not.
Missouri and Illinois have no such law on the books, so hold the purple confetti.
Tom Ford
I was simply curious why Tom feels so strongly about gay marriage...if he had reasons for being so angry about it.
well, I'll put my two cent's worth in about the horrors of gay marriage. I saw this online and realized how perfect it is:
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
A little humor to lighten the mood.
8:27 AM Blogger: Watch out for the "humor police," Since the NSA now reads everything, you may get a call from Obama or holder!
Tom Ford
Lets try this again,
What "religious" law are you willing to live with out,
"thou shall not commit murder"
"Thou shall not steal"
Are you ok with living in a country where those two religious laws are not inplace?
How about "thou shall not bear false witness"? Want go to be tried in a court where it's not against the law to lie when called to give testimony against you? You're ok
with that?
I will try it again: most people (not all) do not need a church to tell them what is ethically or morally acceptable.
Still haven't heard from Tom about why he's so upset by this whole subject.
5:45 PM Blogger: I'm not upset, I just think the whole thing is silly! I have been married to ONE WOMAN for over 47 years, and at no time have we stood on a corner nd demanded more than what we earned!
Not so the fringe groups that seem to feel that unless they have a cause celeb, their life is over!
For 71 years I have believed that marriage is between one man an one woman, and I will go to my grave continuing to believe it.
Upset? Well let's just say I am sick and tired of those who infringe on MY BELIEF IN GOD, no matter who or what they are!
Now you know, so like it or just find another Blog to play on.
Tom Ford
5:45,
Really, most people don't need a church to tell them what is morally or acceptable?
Why then, do we have laws and punishments?
What was the source or foundation of those laws?
Would you want to live where there weren't any laws since most people know what is moral or acceptable?
sigh. What I meant was that you assume that all laws are required to come from churches. I simply stated that I do not feel that way. I don't necessarily think that laws wouldn't exist if clergy didn't tell us what they should be.
I don't care much what anyone does in their private life. It's none of my business what other people do behind closed doors. I do, however, think that asking for the right to get married doesn't qualify as asking for more than they earned. When did you "earn" your right to be married? When did I or anyone? Are there college hours you spend earning this right? I was unaware.It's asking for the exact same thing you just said you were proud to have.
10:19 PM Blogger: Well, it's not the "exact same thing you just said you were proud to have!"
Since your writings indicate that you wish to bend God's rules to suit whatever you want to do, I doubt you will ever understand.
You spoke of college courses, my father was fond of saying, "You would have to go to school to get that stupid, you could not do it by yourself." Know what? In a lot of cases he was right on the money!
In the case of most colleges the "professors" are flaming liberals who teach the liberal mantra of "just do it and everything for everybody."
Now, who said I earned the right to be married? Dust off your speed reading course and try again, you missed the point by a mile!
I would like to point out that NONE of this sort of thing was thrown in the face of Americans until the Saul Alinsky (Rules for radicals) era. At that time ALL the fringe elements came out of the wood work and marched for God knows what!
As for me, you can do whatever you want to in your own home, just don't flaunt your lifestyle in front of me or my Grand children. because to me, it's abhorrent!
Tom Ford
To further prove my point, "A MEMORIAL" to Bumblebees?
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/06/bumblebee_memorial_scheduled_f.html
What in the heck is wrong with the country that they have the time and energy to do this? Doesn't anyone work anymore?
It's a darn bug for goodness sake, sad, maybe, but a memorial?
Tom Ford
My apologies. I assumed that your quote meant that you had somehow earned the right to be married. "I have been married to ONE WOMAN for over 47 years, and at no time have we stood on a corner nd demanded more than what we earned!". Since what you meant was not what I interpreted, I apologize.
as I said, I don't really care what other people do with their private lives. I have a friend who keeps yelling about God's rules, and I tell him to be very careful.There are many, many rules set forth in the Bible, and very few people follow them all. Christians tend to see the Bible as "cafeteria style" religion. Pick only what you like and ignore the rest.
7:54 post: correct. Most who call themselves Christians aren't very observant of the rules and laws set down in the Christian Bible, myself included.
And, if I may comment, Saul Alinsky?? How is the movement for gay rights his fault? Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement I can see, but Alinksy? He died in 1972.
"What I meant was that you assume that all laws are required to come from churches"
sigh,
That's your first problem, you assume too much and don't use logic to support your statements or answers.
What other people do behind closed doors, is none of your business? Does that include having sexual relations with minors behind closed doors? If so, is the resulting impact on the minor when they reach adulthood then become your responsibility?
Explain your position with logic and not "sighs".
I am trying to understand, at this point, why you are so upset about this. So, to clarify, are you telling me that no laws would exist anywhere, for any reason, if churches hadn't told everyone they must be? Is it your position that human beings are incapable of writing and passing laws that do not come from a religion? I just need to clarify this, because having sex with minors isn't generally included in religious law, so now you're stepping out of the area I thought you were addressing.
8:27 AM Blogger: Saul was one of the more infamous 60's radicals, the reference was to the time frame, not Saul (well he may have been into that as well.)
I have noticed that a lot of things that wren't all that stellar were born of that Ira of "free love!"
Tom Ford
404
Im addressing your position that you do not want to live under or obey laws that come from the Bible.
My position is this: I didn't say I didn't want to live under laws from the Bible, I said I didn't think people needed churches to tell them how to live. I believe the laws you are referring to would exist even if churches did not exist.
You sited sexual relations with minors. In my view, a church is the last place to consult on that one. Whom shall we ask? Some Catholic priests? Hardly a shining example, I think. Plus, during the Bible times, people were of an age to marry at 11 or 12. In modern times, that is sex with a minor, is it not? So that reference is moot.
Our national laws include not killing and stealing, yes, but where are the other laws from the Bible, if we are incapable of passing laws without Bibles in our hands? Where is the law that makes it a felony to eat pork? The Bible expressly forbids it, yet I had a ham sandwich about a week ago, and I am not in custody. Where is the law that forbids tattooing? Marking the body is forbidden in the Bible, yet many have tattoos and the artists that do them are doing well, and none of them have been arrested. In the Bible, adulterers are to be stoned to death, yet I have yet to see or hear of the courts providing judges with large rocks to carry out sentences. The Bible says women are not allowed to speak in church at all..they are to keep silent. Not the case, yet, from my church at least, no one has been dragged out and read their rights. There's even a passage in Levitcus that indicates that not listening to God will result in having to eat, yes EAT, your own children.
So are you saying that all Bible laws should be how we live in America? Well get to lobbying on all these and see how far you get. Living under Biblical law is going to be great! Then look back at what I actually said, and realize that I didn't say what you keep accusing me of saying. Human beings are capable of coming up with laws and rules to follow that have nothing to do with any religion. Example: traffic laws. How many traffic laws can you find in the Bible? State the chapter and verse, please. I want to look up God's reference to speeding for myself. Divorce laws. Since divorce was illegal in the Bible, I guess every nation on earth that allows it destined for hell. Am I finally being clear enough, or do you want some more examples?
"I believe the laws you are referring to would exist even if churches did not exist."
I disagree, and ask you prove your statement as fact.
7:45 AM June 29th
"I said I didn't think people needed churches to tell them how to live."
Do you mean churches, or do you mean organized religion, or do you mean a belief in some kind of life after death? The three are not interchangeable.
Martha Duchkld
I stated that I believe this as an opinion I hold. Apparently I offered enough proof, since you did not site the passages in the Bible where traffic laws, divorce laws, etc, are listed. These are laws that were written by human beings without the Bible to tell them what to write. Now, since you are so tuned in to proof, please offer yours that mankind is incapable of writing laws that the Bible did not mandate.
I was referring to religion as a whole. In this particular case, I am referring to Christianity, since the poster who objects to my opinion referred directly to the Bible.
Thanks. Here's something to consider:
You are correct when you say the Bible says nothing about traffic laws. But to deny the influence of religion on our secular laws is an untenable position to take.
Consider the example of laws against speeding. What is at the core of this law?
To answer that question, you need to consider the consequences of speeding. The obvious consequence is that you could do harm to yourself or others through your reckless behavior.
I could therefore argue that laws against speeding are safety measures that are designed to protect human life.
This altruistic goal is consistent with the basic tenets of Christianity, especially the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."
Martha Duchild
and I would agree with that statement on principle. I never once stated that I felt religion wasn't wonderful, beneficial, and good and all of that. I only said that I don't feel it's necessary for mankind in order to create and live by a set of laws and/or rules. I think religion, created by man, is an outcropping of our innate tendency to make order and rules within the structures of society. The religious law is a positive result...but humans are capable of writing laws and boundaries that are not connected to a religion. Tax laws, environmental laws, copyright laws, etc. We have the ability, it all I stated.
Now this is interesting, no? Here we have the progressive liberal news defending a homophobic slur by a Hollywood ?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/06/30/abc-news-defends-alec-baldwin-calls-homophobic-attack-alleged-slur#ixzz2Xi0zDJFh
Tom Ford
By the way, yesterday on CNN news they announced that Be4rt and Ernie from Sesame street will announce their gay and will wed!
I believe I asked the musical question, "where will it stop" a while ago. Well were seeing what I meant now, aren't we.
My grand daughter will no longer be watching Bert, or Ernie, not to mention the rest of that program, at least not here.
Tom Ford
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/28/bert-and-ernie-come-out-in-new-yorker/
Cut funding to PBS and see what happens then!
Tom Ford
what's wrong with Bert and Ernie? Did you really think all these years they were straight? 2 adult, single male characters that lived together? Seriously? My kids figured that out when they were pretty young. I doubt they'll be any less appealing or entertaining to a child's mind because they're married. I truly don't understand why you care.
" I truly don't understand why you care," and there in lies the reason I rest my case!
Tom Ford
Would it be ok anonymous if Burt was a minor and Ernie an adult?
How do you know that's not what is being depicted instead of two adults?
You don't know and you don't care and that sums it up.
Mankind, if left alone, will sink to his very lowest trait. And that trait is who cares.
Once established as the standard of a society, there will be no limits to what behavior will be accepted. There will be no right or wrong, all deeds will be judged based on relativity of the deed, not the moral value the deed violates.
An example of how close we are to this now is the case Dr. Gosnell. A review of his defense supports how much of his now proven crimes were based on Moral Relativity.
Another point in case is the current debate over illegal emigrations. There should be no debate on what should be done. The problem is there are laws that are not being enforced. Why, Moral Relativity is being used to excuse law violators and casting those what want the law upheld as the criminals.
How deep imprinted is Moral Relativity into our society? Two further examples without comment.
1. Giving birth control to underage kids by the public school system on the unproven belief that "they are going to do it anyway".
2. President Clinton's affair and lying to cover it up while in the White House was defended by, "it's only sex, everybody lies about sex".
Anonymous, the question now for you is this, "what do you use to support what you believe is right and what is wrong?"
well, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Your clear preoccupation with underage sex disturbs me, since, if you are the one who posted earlier, you kept going back to it to the point of being..um...concerning.
As for Bert and Ernie, I have some gay family members, so I am not homophobic. That's all I can think of to say about that. I would never even consider ostracizing family members because of that. The indication that others would is very sad.
Everyone is able to have their own feelings and opinions, and a membership to the flat earth society if that is what they choose. Obviously your opinion of human beings couldn't get much lower, and that is both sad and not unexpected. I choose to have a higher opinion of people in general. I think people are not as primal and devoid of moral structure as you indicate, and that good surrounds us every day.
and before anyone freaks out, what I meant was that I am concerned that the 1:50 poster had has a very traumatic event involving underage minors.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the concern about my having experienced a traumatic event involving underage minors. That is not the case in my situation.
I would ask you to review the study done by Timothy J. Dailey, PhD which can be found at
orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Daileyhomosexualabuse.php
and
www.home60515.com/3html
Or the works done by Helen Wilson PhD that finds that there is evidence between childhood sexual abuse and same sex partnerships among men.
(library.villanova.edu)
Now, do you understand my concern with your position that everyone has a right to their rights and feelings and how I view this to be an open ended downward spiral in our society?
Sexual child abuse is wrong. (boy man love is a crime and wrong)
What does the image of Burt and Ernie support?
There is a right and wrong.
For you equate my position as akin to membership in the flat earth society is a perfect example of how today's liberals address the belief that there is a right and wrong. It is arrogant, smarmy, and a rather typical put down by those who believe they are intellectually superior.(you forgot to call me a Bible thumper, knuckle dragging, gun lover, racist homophobic) It is a clear humanism value system which if followed to it's logical conclusion produces a society where there is nothing a person could do that would be consider wrong.
You are dodging the points and examples I posted in attempt to discredit my positions and my intelligence, based on your assumed superiority. Why? Because you can not logically and honestly deal with the examples and positions presented.
I'm right, you are wrong, and there is nothing you can do to prove different. Or you would have done so.
clearly you are correct, as I am sure you are in all cases at all times. Yes, you are right, and only those with your exact same views should be allowed out in public. I bow to your superior morality. If only we could all aspire to your moral high ground. I do notice, however, that still you did not provide proof that mankind is incapable of writing laws without the Bible. I guess that will have to be ignored, as your demands for proof of things is all that counts.
I will, however, leave you with one thing you may disregard with a derisive snort: At one time, African Americans were viewed this exact same way because they wanted the same rights as everyone else. At one time, all women were viewed this same way because they wanted the same rights as men. At one time, even Christians were viewed in a similar light, and couldn't even openly admit to practicing Christianity. Just because this is your view now, doesn't mean it is correct or right. And it doesn't make you a superior person because you support bigotry and discrimination. It actually makes you closer to the mind set of the Taliban than I think you might be willing to admit. Stone anyone lately? After all, it's a law from the Bible, so it MUST be okay.
And here is why. I didn't use the Bible or any religious book yet you attack me as if I did so. I gave studies outside relgious positions which you haven't even bother to read and develop an argument for your position.
Instead you played the only card liberals have when confronted in this manner, and that is the race card. So predicable it's funny, first an personal attack, then moral relativity, next the denial of the fact that mankind without laws will do even more evil. And the final defensive throw away is not answering the orginal question, would you live in a nation where some of it's laws are based on teachings found in the Bible?
Does this mean I feel superior, heck no, because I know the true meaning of the term " heart of darkness". How do I know, cause I've got one, just like as all humans.
I don't hate homosexuals, I just refuse to acknowdge that they are a minority deserving special protection in the eyes of the law. They are not underprivileged, as a group they have the highest income per person in the USA.
You had your chance to debate the issue and couldn't do it. Sorry.
You had your chance to debate the issue and couldn't do it
Alright, I'll bite. What issue are you referring to? I gave you more than one example of laws written without religion dictating the content, as requested. You did not give any examples (or proof, as you call it) when asked to prove your side.
So what do you want to debate? Whether I would live in a society where some laws are based on religious teachings? Sure. Would you live in one where that wasn't the case? Where all laws are strictly secular, as they are supposed to be in America?
I did not play a race card. I will clarify what "playing the race card" is, to my mind. If I had, in fact, played the race card, as you suggested, I would have used my own race to gain an advantage. Since I did not do that, I have no idea what you're talking about. Shall we debate that? Okay by me.
Your statement, " I just refuse to acknowdge that they are a minority deserving special protection in the eyes of the law." interests me. What "special" protection are they asking for? The last time I checked, getting married isn't a "special privilege", it's a pretty basic and assumed right everyone else enjoys without special anything. Are we debating marriage being a special privilege, available only to those who have passed some sort of test? Who gets to decide that? and why? Because the Bible said it's bad? Well, I will debate what the Bible says is wrong til the cows come home, so please, begin. Tell me all the things the Bible says are wrong that aren't illegal. I'll start you off: The Bible says killing is wrong, yet refers over and over and over how people should be killed if they do something God doesn't like. But killing is wrong. But we must stone adulterers. But killing is wrong....Your turn. What shall we debate?
and for the record, I went to the web addresses you recommended and got "page not displayed" message.
9:38 PM June 30th
Not all religions interpret the Bible literally (as you appear to be doing in your examples).
Also, the examples you use to criticize certain aspects of religion are self-serving,and not entirely accurate given the different interpretations that can be made of the Old and New Testaments.
You can find extremist views (and people who believe in them) in just about any religion, but these are the exceptions, not the rule.
Would you agree that, given the overwhelming inspiration to goodness that can be derived from the Bible, it has been a positive influence on humankind and a valuable reference for morality?
Martha Duchild
"And it doesn't make you a superior person because you support bigotry and discrimination."
I SEE, this person you just described is not a racist! My apologies for claiming you had played the race card.
Sigh.
I will agree that it has contributed to morality, yes. This whole firestorm started because I made a simple statement that human beings, as a race of beings, do not require religion to establish rules and laws. The Bible, as it stands as a book of rules and ways to live, is a severe example of how to deal with rule breakers. It states implicitly that those who break rules should be killed in many instances. I contend that human do not need a doctrine that was allegedly sent from God to establish societal laws. One could even go completely to the edge and contend that humans wrote the Bible, not God. God may have dictated it, but human actually wrote it down. I chose not to go there, and instead simply stated that, in the absence of religion, laws would still exist because people would write them.
"I SEE, this person you just described is not a racist! My apologies for claiming you had played the race card."
So, just so I am clear, I have been referring to the rights of gay people, not racial minorities. Therefore, the race card can't possibly apply if that's not even who we are talking about. Bigotry and discrimination can apply to those who are not a different color, fyi. Sigh.
and unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Ford's darkest fears have come to pass:
http://www.google.com/search?q=paul+ryan+kissing+a+fish
I apologize Mr. Ford, you were apparently correct, though I do not know if the fish in this picture is tropical or not. But I stand corrected.
8:07 AM Blogger: It only stood to reason that given an inch, they would "take a fish!"
Now., want to get physically ill?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/lady-gaga-amends-national-anthem-land-free-and-hom/
Tom Ford
I just didn't expect it from Paul Ryan!! I guess he'll be getting a call from Rick Santorum pretty soon...lol.
10:43 AM BLOGGER: There ar times when you have to illustrate absurdity with absurdity, so...............
Tom Ford
10:43 AM BLOGGER: There ar times when you have to illustrate absurdity with absurdity, so...............
Tom Ford
To 6:51 AM July 1, 2013
I respectfully disagree. You stated that human beings do not require religion to establish rules and laws, and then proceed to back up your statement with Biblical references that only deal with the literal interpretation of punishments for violating those laws, NOT to the establishment of those laws.
How many civilizations can you find that have not been influenced by or operated under some system of belief in an afterlife in which they may be judged for their behavior on earth?
It's very difficult to make an argument such as the one you make because for most of human history, religious belief has existed in some form or another among humans.
If humans were completely without religious influence, then they would necessarily operate under the laws of nature, which tend more toward the survival of the fittest than towards altruistic behavior.
Martha Duchild
You make a good point. We shall have to agree to disagree. I do agree that I jumped subjects, and I apologize for that. The issues were separate: 1)that human beings can makes laws without religion and 2)that Christian moral structure is a cafeteria approach, particularly exemplified by the homophobia so commonly found in our country. I will be more careful to put on a blinker before I change lanes next time.
I'll accept agreeing to disagree, and hope that you are not so disappointed in religious belief, as it is practiced by most people (not those on the fringes who attract the most media attention) that you close yourself off to the hope it offers to many.
Martha Duchild
"that human beings can makes laws without religion"
Yes humans can do as you say. The questions are, would you want to live a country where that is what happened and can you name a country where that has happened?
The questions are, would you want to live a country where that is what happened and can you name a country where that has happened?
Yes, I would live in a country with purely secular laws. That is, in theory anyway, what we are supposed to have in America. No, I have no particular example. It was a theoretical statement, not meant as reality. The poster who lost his/her mind over what I said failed to recognize that I was only speaking about potential.
To 5:41 PM July 1st:
Where in our Constitution does it state that we are supposed to have purely secular laws?
The laws we are supposed to have are the ones given to us by the founding fathers, and amended over time. There was no mandate that from their inception, the laws under which U.S. citizens are governed had to be purely secular.
Perhaps you are conflating freedon of religion with freedom from religion?
I agree that as a purely theoretical exercise, it would be interesting to see how humans, untouched by any knowledge of or adherence to religious belief, would decide to govern themselves.
Martha Duchild
5:41 PM, July 01, 2013
My point is I can not think of any country that has purely secular laws for you to live in.
hence my statement of the thought being theoretical. Theoretical means existing only in theory, or hypothetical.
since a part of the recent discussion has been on the hypocrisy of the Christian religion while it preaches that gay people are evil, thought I'd offer up this interesting journey by a female blogger. Now, before anyone's head explodes because it was on the Huffington Post, I only used this link because it was taken straight from the Momestry blog and the link is very direct. It's a long read, but it is very similar to the points I have been trying to make here. Just putting it out there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glennon-melton/i-love-gay-people-and-christians-_b_3497785.html
10:16 July 2
"since a part of this discussion has been on the hypocrisy of the Christian religion while it preaches that gay people are evil ..."
To which Christian religion are you referring?
Your assumptions and generalizations about Christianity have clearly suffered from what I described in an earlier post. It is the extreme views that get the attention, but they don't represent the majority opinion. Feel free to draw conclusions from extreme views, but understand that as a result of your limited sampling, your conclusions will therefore havef limited accuracy.
You accuse others of cafeteria style religion, yet you use this same device to have a "cafeteria style" defense of your criticism of religion - pick what you want that supports your view, and ignore the rest.
I'll leave you with a current event to consider: Yesterday a Catholic monk was beheaded in Syria. This beheading was performed and witnessed by an audience of Al-Qaeda members.
Are we to conclude that all Muslims are bad, that all Muslims think Catholic priests are evil, or that the Muslim religion is hypocritical?
Martha Duchld
of course not. But I am , as yet, unaware of a Christian-based religion that accepts homosexuality. It is not a fringe mind set, it is wide spread. There is a generalized overtone in this whole country that is distinctly homophobic, even evidenced right here on this blog. People are not born disliking or hating anything. We are taught. And who has traditionally taught this attitude towards the gay community? Churches. What do they use to justify this? The approximately half dozen references to it throughout the old and new testaments. Our own host on this site demonstrates homophobia when he stated that his grandchildren will never watch Sesame Street at his house again because of a picture The New Yorker produced. He stated " I am sick and tired of those who infringe on MY BELIEF IN GOD, no matter who or what they are!". I can't for the life of me see how other people getting married infringes on his own belief in God, but he seems to believe that. So, where does that come from? Church. Is Mr. Ford a fringe element freak to be disregarded? No. So what other conclusion is there to reach? These teachings are religion-based, with the Bible as the foundation. This leads logically to the cafeteria idea. If I, as a devout Christian, condemn homosexuality because my church tells me God says it's wrong, then how do they justify serving ham at the social hour right after church, which is also expressly forbidden in the Bible? It is the actual definition of hypocrisy, and I cannot help it; it is very upsetting to me. I am on a constant search to justify my religion's apparent total rejection of others because of their sexual orientation. That is NOT what Jesus preached. As a matter of fact, Jesus didn't reference homosexuality at all. So far, it is the religion that is coming up short, because the rules system in place is illogical.
Many Christian religions accept homosexuals. If you are unaware of this, either you are not paying attention or you're not interested in the facts if they don't support your opinion. You're using broad brushstrokes to condemn religion, yet offering very little in the way of facts to support your opinions.
What the Christian religion teaches above all else is to love your neighbor as yourself. That is the enduring message that has been handed down over the centuries. That is what, if you ask an average person of faith, people try to put into practice.
Churches do not preach hatred, and if someone chooses to interpret what they hear in a way that is inconsistent with the foundation of Christian orthodoxy, then that is a human failure, not a failure of religion.
Martha Duchild
Well, let's see where this one goes folks. It sounds like a classic case of "I'm more important, no I AM more important."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352559/cornel-west-blacks-being-pushed-back-bus-favor-gays-and-lesbians-will-allen
Tom Ford
1:58 PM Blogger: I, as many others have been reading the "tennis match" between you and Martha Duchild with interest.
Two things I would like to point out here however.
1. It could be so much more convincing on your part if you signed your real name as she does. By signing it, you would express the fact that you really believe what you're saying. By not signing it, it's extremely hard for me or anyone else to take you seriously.
2. So far, she has the upper hand on facts (pesky things, no?) Ergo, I think you're losing, but, hey it's fun to read, so......
Tom Ford
I am aware that the United Church of Christ accepts same sex marriage, Many Jewish Rabbis and synagogues, the Quakers, and there is a little support on Lutheran and Episcopal's part. Other than that, there are VERY few others that allow it or accept it.
I am interested to know what facts you are asking me for. Since this is a theoretical discussion, I do not know what facts you want me to provide. I have seen very few facts from you; just mostly the same broad strokes I have offered. I was under the impression we were just having a general discussion. I was unaware I needed to research. Please clarify what you want proof of.
Yes, the Christian church preaches loving your neighbor. Many of them also preach against homosexuality and refuse to allow unions like that in their church. I cannot align these two things. What proof would I need to show you?
6:14 PM, July 02, 2013"the Christian church preaches loving your neighbor. Many of them also preach against homosexuality and refuse to allow unions like that in their church. I cannot align these two things."
Lets talk a little about your issue.
First of all the God of the Christian faith is perfect, sinless and the creator of all. He sets the rules. He hates the breaking of his rules/laws which is called sinning. He can not tolerate the violation of his laws. They are to be obeyed or punishment will be dealt.
God being perfect, does not score on the curve, he has made it clear that one sin is one sin too many to enter into his heaven in a humans after life. Only the perfect get in. Or those who shed the blood of the innocent to atone for their sin against their creator, God. God's rules, not mine.
God loves his creation, mankind, and does not wish to see them not enter his heaven and to be separated from him for ever.
But here's the rub, God created man with the ability to sin or not sin. Man has yet failed to not sin, we all have as we have all fallen short of God's glory. God doesn't grade on the curve. So what is God to do?
That is where Jesus comes into God's plan for the shedding of blood of a perfect man for the sins of all those who are not perfect, who recognize they are sinners, and put their faith in the shedding of Jesus's blood instead of their own good works to make things square with God. That's what God requires, he gets to write the rules.
All of and any of mankind can recognize the death of one innocent man as the sacrifice for all. Now God who made us knows that accepting that sacrifice will not stop us from breaking his laws, so he sends to those who have accepted the God provided sacrifice, his Holy Spirit. Does that make us perfect? By No Means. But it does at the very least make us aware of the actions we do that are sins and hopefully give us pause before doing them again. It doesn't make us to want to bend the laws so we can keep sinning.
Ok, here's the deal, God has said homosexual behavior is sin. He still loves the homosexual, but like it or not, if you behave as a homosexual, regardless if you want to or not, you have committed a sin. A sin just as bad in the eyes of God (who doesn't judge on the curve) as murder. Just as any sinner, God's punishment is eternal separation from Him.
Do you think a Christian church should condone murder? Then why would surprise you that a Christian Church would not condone homosexuality? It's all sin or law breaking from Gods point of view.
So what should be done? God made this easy for us if we really want it.
Repent from your law breaking.
Admit your law breaking.
Ask for forgiveness of your law breaking, not on your own merit, cause you have none, (your a law breaker remember?) but claiming the blood of the perfect man who was slain in your place, Jesus as the only reason you merit God's forgiveness.
Sin no more.
Are the Churches who are ok with gay marriages obeying or breaking Gods law? Has there been any changes to this subject issued by God? If so is gay the only subject God's changed, is murder still wrong? Why should a Church make the breaking of the law easier? God is not the God of least inconvenience, he is the God of law. Like it or not, he is the potter, we are the clay, He makes us as he desires. But He still loves His creation, but the sins, OMG, that make Him so sick.
so from this post, given your explanation of the Bible and God's laws, I can assume you have a very complex and profound grasp of Bibical Law. Therefore I assume you do not allow your wife (or yourself if you're female) to wear pants or slacks,I assume you do not eat shellfish of any kind, I assume you do not eat pork of any kind, I assume you do no type of work or effort on Sundays, I assume you advocate stoning of the guilty(which is killing, but okay by God in certain instances), I assume you beat your children, I assume you refuse to allow yourself(if you're female) or any woman to speak in church, and that you head(if female) is covered at all times while in prayer, I assume you have no tattoos or marks on your body and that you do not allow such things in your family....I want to know how to apply all of God's laws to modern day life in America. I also want to know why references to homosexuality in the Bible should be obeyed, but none of these other thing must be. And please don't insult my intelligence by telling me a ham sandwich will send me to hell.
"Where in our Constitution does it state that we are supposed to have purely secular laws?"
from usconstitution.net:
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States
Anonymous :05 AM, July 04
You assume wrong. A lot of times, about a lot of things about me. If you were to study the New Testament book of Acts you would see and understand why your assumption about what my wife wears or doesn't wear is wrong.
Read Acts chapter 11, and chapter 15.
Also understand that the rules you site are not the rules of the New Testament. For a better understanding of what I'm talking about read Acts chapter 21 starting at verse 17, it deals with the issues you brought up in your post. I would recommend not reading in a King James translation as while the English is beautiful, it is not the English we use today. I like the New Geneva Study Bible because it its cross referencing verses and answering questions verse by verse. But that's just me.
Also, you can never go wrong by reading the entire book of Romans for a better grasp of what is the foundation my Christian faith. If you want to stay on the issues you brought up in your post, you should read the entire chapter of Romans 14.
As for what laws about homosexuality are to be obeyed, I would give you one law that I know still applies. It is given to us by Jesus in John chapter 8. Specifically vs 11. His command was "go and sin no more". It is still sin, but it is forgiven by the work/sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection from the grave. Jesus paid the price of all one's sins, there is forgiveness in Him, and His command to sin no more. Just as murder is still a sin, it is forgivable by God, however that does not mean the sinner is free from the punishment of the State for murder.(Chapter 13 of Romans deals with this)
The act of breaking God's law is still a sin, that has not changed. What has changed is the price for the violation of God's law (sin). It is no longer ours to pay, someone else has paid it for you. Plus Gods command you to sin no more.
If and when you read what I've outlined above, please get back with your thoughts.
before I do your homework, please clarify: are you telling me the laws of the Old Testament are to be disregarded?
I'm not telling you anything, the sections I suggested you read will answer your question, and it's not homework. It's up to you to be curious enough to read where I think you will find your answers. You may not like were this leads you, I'm sorry in advance, but its there for you if you take the time and are as open minded as you want others to be about your gay family members you might grow in understanding.
You do realize that no one is forcing your gay family members to break up or to attend a church they do not agree with, or to go to jail due to their sexual behaviors? So what is the big deal about wanting to get married? They can live sinful lives all they want, why do they want to force others to approve of their lifestyles is what I don't understand. Am I, by refusing to call a sin anything else but sin, preventing sin from occurring? Recognizing gay marriage nation wide will not change the truth that it is still a sin.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams
Aren't we proving Mr. Adams correct on this.
"why do they want to force others to approve of their lifestyles"
Really? Judgmental much? The state doesn't email you on every marriage it licenses to get your approval, does it? So if a serial killer marries a prostitute, and one is a man and one is a woman, it's perfectly okay by you, but 2 hard working, tax paying, decent people "need your approval"? THIS is my issue with people who profess to be Christians. I will look up your Bible passages and get back to you after I have read them.
11:37 PM Blogger: Just wondering, if your not a Christian, then what faith (if any) are you?
No right or wrong answer here as I believe this will help me understand where your coming from reference your posts.
Tom Ford
I identify as Christian. I was raised in the Christian faith, and I raised my children in it. I have been, in the last few years, increasingly disenchanted with what I witnessed both personally and on the news about the way so-called "Christians" were behaving. Some of things that come out of "Christians'" mouths is mind bending. So, I began to delve a little deeper into what they were actually saying, and I became outraged at the hypocrisy and judgmental attitudes. I am, I guess you could say, in a crisis of faith, where I no longer am willing to blindly accept "Jesus said this" or "do this because God said so", or "this is a sin but that isn't", and in particular, "that's a sin so it's evil, but all these other things are too, but we're ignoring those." I have started questioning everything, and I will admit I do not like many of the answers I have gotten. So I am a Christian. For now.
"Read Acts chapter 11, and chapter 15."
I have done this, and I see no connection to your wife's clothing, as you said I would be able to reference. Please clarify.
"Also understand that the rules you site are not the rules of the New Testament. For a better understanding of what I'm talking about read Acts chapter 21 starting at verse 17, it deals with the issues you brought up in your post."
I have done this. I see nothing about rules of the New Testament. In fact, rules from the Old Testament are referenced. Please clarify.
"Also, you can never go wrong by reading the entire book of Romans for a better grasp of what is the foundation my Christian faith."
Thanks, but I'll pass on your Christian faith. No disrespect intended, but I have been preached at enough.
"Plus Gods command you to sin no more."
Okay, yes, I am aware of this, but it does not appear to address the fact that there are dozens of laws and rules in the Bible that God laid down that are ignored by most Christians. Why homosexuality? Why was it chosen by our churches to be so much more than, say, eating pork or shellfish? The Bible talks again and again about "unclean" food, so why is being gay a sin, but a shrimp cocktail isn't? And circumscision: the Bible talks about it nearly obsessively, yet it is not considered a crime or sin that I'm aware of to choose not to have it done now. Why is being gay a sin but that isn't? Please clarify.
You also have not addressed my other question: are you indicating that laws of the New Testament make Old Testament laws moot?
Anonymous
I've given you the best I know, sorry it was not enough for you.
thank you for your time.
"Okay, yes, I am aware of this, but it does not appear to address the fact that there are dozens of laws and rules in the Bible that God laid down that are ignored by most Christians. Why homosexuality? Why was it chosen by our churches to be so much more than, say, eating pork or shellfish? The Bible talks again and again about "unclean" food, so why is being gay a sin, but a shrimp cocktail isn't? And circumscision: the Bible talks about it nearly obsessively, yet it is not considered a crime or sin that I'm aware of to choose not to have it done now. Why is being gay a sin but that isn't? Please clarify."
Your answers are there.
Acts 10:9-16
Acts 11:5-9
Acts 15 (wasn't that a reading you said you already read and now you ask questions for which the answers are found here?)
Acts 21:vs 25, deals with your question about the Old and New Testament Law.
Romans 2: 25-29 more on the Law
Romans chapter 7
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to you if you did the research yourself and found the answers on your own?
I would ask you to enter into your research with the intent of finding the Bible in error, and go from there. As I said earlier, I am not adequate to the task you have presented to me, please accept my apologizes for MY shortcomings.
again, thank you for your time.
Gay Tolerance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utyiN7g0TkE
did you have a point to make with that particular video? If so, please elaborate.
Anonymous 4:46 PM, July 07, 2013
I didn't know that happened, thanks to who ever posted the link, it wasn't in the news anywhere that I know of.
Again, was there a specific point in pointing out this article?
Why not point it out would be a better question? Why not make the readers aware of the event?
Post a Comment
<< Home