Palestinians celebrate death of children.

[utvolpj]

so giving your opinion in public vs private is what makes it a terrorist act? I don't think I've attended a church where they didn't eventually get around to telling you what gets you admitted into hell

 

[DinkinFlicka]

so giving your opinion in public vs private is what makes it a terrorist act? I don't think I've attended a church where they didn't eventually get around to telling you what gets you admitted into hell

imposition - definition of imposition by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[MG1968]

wow, I jokingly equate WBC to the Muslim Brotherhood and get told "don't go there". Now we're finding out that any form of proselytizing is terrorism.

I shall now fear Mormon youth on bicycles.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

wow, I jokingly equate WBC to the Muslim Brotherhood and get told "don't go there". Now we're finding out that any form of proselytizing is terrorism.

I shall now fear Mormon youth on bicycles.

I fear hitting them with my tacoma after a long afternoon of drinking.

So... is it only terrorism if people die? That's kind of crappy.

 

[VOLatile]

Those Mormon kids are so silly. The chaperon that was driving two 15 year old kids around door-to-door a few weeks ago didn't like it when I fake hit on him. That certainly got them to stop coming to my door.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Those Mormon kids are so silly. The chaperon that was driving two 15 year old kids around door-to-door a few weeks ago didn't like it when I fake hit on him. That certainly got them to stop coming to my door.

I find that answering your door with a ketchup covered knife in one hand and a cat by the tail in the other accompanied with a "Whaaaaaat?" tends to make 'em scatter.

 

[VOLatile]

I find that answering your door with a ketchup covered knife in one hand and a cat by the tail in the other accompanied with a "Whaaaaaat?" tends to make 'em scatter.

When I was about 15 I answered the door naked with a stiffy and box of tissues. I saw them coming down the road so I had a little time to get ready. I had heard a guy on the radio that answered the door in his underwear with a woody, so I decided to one up that.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

When I was about 15 I answered the door naked with a stiffy and box of tissues. I saw them coming down the road so I had a little time to get ready. I had heard a guy on the radio that answered the door in his underwear with a woody, so I decided to one up that.

:hi::good!::salute:

I think that about sums it up.

 

[sjt18]

That goes without saying, but it's also irrelevant. You're pretty much saying Palestinians are fundamentally evil simply because you see chaos in a chaotic land. Again, we rarely see the folks who are really hurting from this... only those starting the fire and fanning the flame.

It really isn't irrelevant and I have not called them evil. It is chaotic because people are committing evil acts without cause. The Israelis are not completely perfect or innocent but peace would ensue if the Palestinians stopped the aggression.

Too many think this is just about land. It isn't. It is about Israel's right to exist as a nation in the vicinity of the historic Jewish homeland. It won't be solved simply because the Jews give up some land or agree to Palestinian statehood. In fact, Israel rightly calculates that Palestinian statehood would likely make the aggression worse.

When, if ever, you see Palestinians acknowledging Israel's right to exist then we can hope. I am not optimistic.

This is sibling jealous that has been simmering for 3000-4000 years.

 

[sjt18]

Please try to tell me that saying someone is going to hell because they're gay is not terrorism. Terrorism is not strictly physically violent in nature.

It is not terrorism. It isn't a statement of what "I" will do to you... it is a statement of what will happen to you.

If you tell someone that you are going to push them out in front of a bus someday unless they stop engaging in homosexual behavior after having done it to other homosexuals... that would seem to qualify.

If you warn someone that they will be killed if they step out in front of a bus.... that DOES NOT qualify. If the person is just headlong determined to run out into the road carelessly or even lu****lly then the cry to "stop!" is simply a very loving, courageous warning.

 

[rmsmith]

I just tell them they have 5 seconds to get off of my porch. then I start counting at 3

 

[sjt18]

Some let others live the way they want to live, and that's fine by me. It's simple, if you go around telling people they're going to hell then you're instilling a basic fear in them. That's on the level with terrorism, imo.
.

How is telling someone that they are doing something wrong and will be judged by God for it qualify as being hateful or preventing them from living the way they want? Is it terrorism when homosexuals want to impose themselves on Christian landlords? Employers? Are homosexual rallies where people threaten to come after children or "stomp" out the bigotry of others terrorist rallies?

Is it an act of terrorism when a mother tells their child that a hot stove will burn their hand? Is it unloving when parents tell their teens about the graphic dangers of texting and driving?

EVERY warning involves the fear of some undesired consequence... at what point do you PC police stop with the free speech suppression... Wait. Isn't that terrorism too?

 

[rmsmith]

How is telling someone that they are doing something wrong and will be judged by God for it qualify as being hateful or preventing them from living the way they want? Is it terrorism when homosexuals want to impose themselves on Christian landlords? Employers? Are homosexual rallies where people threaten to come after children or "stomp" out the bigotry of others terrorist rallies?

How are they imposing? They just want the same rights that come along with marriage.
personally I could care less if the church recognizes it. But the state cannot discriminate against someone based upon sexual orientation when we have freedom of religion. Homosexuality may be frowned upon by christians but not all of them do.

 

[sjt18]

How are they imposing? They just want the same rights that come along with marriage.
personally I could care less if the church recognizes it.

I didn't say anything about marriage. But since you did, please show any legal basis whatsoever that marriage or the benefits that come with it are "rights".

A marriage is a privileged, qualified license issued by a state for purposes defined by the people of the state through their legislature. All licenses involve qualifiers.

A homosexual has no more "right" to a marriage license than a blind person has to a driver's license. You can say that someone does not qualify without declaring them a "bad person".

But the state cannot discriminate against someone based upon sexual orientation when we have freedom of religion.

Hypothetical for you. Let's say that the state sanctions homosexual marriage. Then let's say that a Christian business owner refuses to recognize that marriage or provide spousal benefits to the other person. Does that business owner lose his property and religious rights guaranteed by the USC?

Homosexuality may be frowned upon by christians but not all of them do.

Homosexuality is defined as a sin by the Bible... the founding document of Christianity. "Christian" has a definition. Part of that definition is repentance from self-will and submitting to God's will. "Christians" can do whatever they like but Christ condemned sin even as He showed love and forgiveness toward the humble and repentent.

The homosexual movement isn't just looking for "rights" with regard to marriage. Homosexuals tend to be more educated and have more disposable income than their heterosexual counterparts. They could fairly cheaply get most if not all spousal benefits by visiting a lawyer and signing a contract. The issue here is affirmation... official endorsement.

Chai Feldblum who Obama recently appointed to the EEOC acknowledges that "gay rights (approval)" vs religious/conscience rights is a zero sum game. For homosexuals to gain the approval and privilege they seek, religious and particularly Christian rights must be suppressed.

It isn't nearly as simplistic as you seem to think.

 

[rmsmith]

I didn't say anything about marriage. But since you did, please show any legal basis whatsoever that marriage or the benefits that come with it are "rights".

A marriage is a privileged, qualified license issued by a state for purposes defined by the people of the state through their legislature. All licenses involve qualifiers.

Name one other state license that can discriminate in who it goes to?

A homosexual has no more "right" to a marriage license than a blind person has to a driver's license. You can say that someone does not qualify without declaring them a "bad person".

Why would a blind person need a drivers license?
they wouldn't pass the test here in ga because there is a vision test. Maybe the state you live in should raise their standards.

Hypothetical for you. Let's say that the state sanctions homosexual marriage. Then let's say that a Christian business owner refuses to recognize that marriage or provide spousal benefits to the other person. Does that business owner lose his property and religious rights guaranteed by the USC? Homosexuality is defined as a sin by the Bible... the founding document of Christianity. "Christian" has a definition. Part of that definition is repentance from self-will and submitting to God's will. "Christians" can do whatever they like but Christ condemned sin even as He showed love and forgiveness toward the humble and repentent.

Yes the business owner would be subject to discrimination lawsuits just like if they discriminated against anyone else for race, gender or disability.

The homosexual movement isn't just looking for "rights" with regard to marriage. Homosexuals tend to be more educated and have more disposable income than their heterosexual counterparts. They could fairly cheaply get most if not all spousal benefits by visiting a lawyer and signing a contract. The issue here is affirmation... official endorsement.

what else are they looking for?

 

[sjt18]

Name one other state license that can discriminate in who it goes to?

Marriage license- age qualifier, no polygamy, no bigamy, no marrying relatives, no marrying people who who are not competent, no marrying animals.

Driver's license- sight, physical ability, age, competence

Hunting license- criminal record, age, competence

Business license- various in some cases to include demonstrating a benefit to the community

Name a single license that does not discriminate on the basis of qualifications established by the legislatures and people. I'm not certain why you oppose a democratic determination of license qualification. There's a good chance you'll win and religious rights will be suppressed on the basis of your victory. You really shouldn't be unhappy with the facts I've given you.

Why would a blind person need a drivers license?
they wouldn't pass the test here in ga because there is a vision test. Maybe the state you live in should raise their standards.

The same question applies to "Why would a homosexual need a marriage license?" Can they demonstrate economic vulnerability like women and children can?

You may not agree with the answers that other citizens give... but the question as to whether there is a benefit to society by extending marriage licenses to homosexuals has to be asked and answered democratically.

Yes the business owner would be subject to discrimination lawsuits just like if they discriminated against anyone else for race, gender or disability.

You have just given all the reason ever needed to deny homosexuals a marriage license if that is true. The homosexuals "rights" end at the tip of that business owner's nose.

Sexual behavior is not on the level of race, gender, or disability. None of those things is chosen. Even if you hold the most radical view of homosexuality being biological.... the behavior is still a CHOICE just like heterosexual intimacy. You don't get to make a free choice then demand that those who disapprove accept you anyway.

I can present a whole host of intrusions by Christians, businesses, et al that parallel this that would make you howl that your rights had been infringed on.

what else are they looking for?

Approval. Exactly what you just said. They are looking for gov't to force people to accept their behavior regardless of the rights, beliefs, and feelings of others.

 

[rmsmith]

I read all of that but still don't understand why Christians want to impose their views on others. Let God be the judge not everyone on earth.

And you contradicted yourself in saying that if i believe homosexuality is biological then it's still a choice.

But I do believe homosexuality is on the same level. Discrimination is the same, doesn't matter who it's against. just because the bible says it's wrong doesn't mean everyone think that way.

 

[NEO]

Name one other state license that can discriminate in who it goes to?


Why would a blind person need a drivers license?
they wouldn't pass the test here in ga because there is a vision test. Maybe the state you live in should raise their standards.

Yes the business owner would be subject to discrimination lawsuits just like if they discriminated against anyone else for race, gender or disability.

what else are they looking for?

driver's license. age discrimination.

voting card. age discrimination.

legal age of drinking. age discrimination.

military having weight limits. weight discrimination.

and so on and so on.

 

[rmsmith]

driver's license. age discrimination.

voting card. age discrimination.

legal age of drinking. age discrimination.

military having weight limits. weight discrimination.

and so on and so on.

.

Marriage license- age qualifier, no polygamy, no bigamy, no marrying relatives, no marrying people who who are not competent, no marrying animals.

Driver's license- sight, physical ability, age, competence

Hunting license- criminal record, age, competence

Business license- various in some cases to include demonstrating a benefit to the community

 

[IPorange]

It's all so clear now...

 

[gsvol]

Look at the number of innocent Palestinians killed by Israel vs. the number of innocent Israelis killed by Palestinians and then let's talk about who the terrorists are.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You have been misinformed.

When Israeli civilians climb fences into Ramallah or Jenin and stab families to death, I'll agree with you.

What get's left out of the discussion most all the time is the oppression of Christian Arabs by other Arabs living under 'Palestinian' control.

Christian Arabs are treated far better in Israel than they are in areas under the control of fellow Arabs who are muslim.

Why doesn't Jordan, Syria, Lebanon seem willing to sacrifice some of their land for the Palestinians? You can't take it all from Israel when the Palestinian 'partners' are unwilling to sacrifice themselves.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Jordan was supposed to be the homeland for 'Palestinians' who were mostly Arabs who had migrated to the area during the early part of the last century.

They were kicked out of Jordan for constantly causing trouble and many settled in Lebanon which ended up as a catastrophe for that country, particularly the Christians of Lebanon.

Egypt and Jordan had occupied parts of the UN parceled Palestinan State from 1948-1967 and did nothing to return that land and establish a Palestinian homeland. When the Israelis returned the Sinai Penisula to Egypt in the late 70's or early 80's, the Egyptians still did nothing to create a Palestinian state.

Exactly, rather than do what was needed to form a lasting peace, the Arab League countries have done all they can to follow a policy of eradicating the Israeli state and it's people.

IIRC, most Palestinians originated from Jordan.

And most Palestinians went to Jordan under their own volition when they were advised by their fellow Arabs to leave Israel so that Jordan, Syria, Egypt and others could militarily eliminate Israel, with the promise the Arabs could return and occupy Jewish land afterwards.

That plan didn't work.

 

[gsvol]

Oh, it's grey no matter how bad you don't want it to be for cultural reasons. Israel just popped into existence by Western powers in a land already arbitrarily cut up by Britain decades before. You say most Palestinians came from Jordan, but that's literally propaganda. Most Israelites came from Europe in the last 60 years. The Palestinians were in Palestine, clashing with the Ottoman Turks prior to WWI, rioting over getting screwed by the British right after the first world war, and then cleared and pushed back by the Zionist movement.

Palestinians are human beings and as much entitled to live there as people transplanted there out of Europe's unreconcilable racism and religious fetishes.

I'm not ignoring the war-like nature of their neighbors, but I'm not pretending like Israel is just this innocent tiny nation who is being picked on either. They were placed there by a far-away foreign power in the middle of a highly sensitive holy area. As far as "right to exist," I'm for them continuing on now but if it were 1948, I would say that the UN nor anyone else had the right to just up and create a nation and move the citizens in like that.

Actually when the jews first started immigrating to their homeland there were far greater numbers of Arabs who immigrated to the area during the same time span.

As for Europes racism, Hitler was happy if the Jews migrated back to the Holy Land but the grand mufti convinced him to initiate the 'final solution.'

Not only that, racism in Europe is nothing to compare with Arab racism which is directed mostly at Jews and black Africans.

Palestinians were welcomed to live in Israel and some still do but were adamant they would live in a muslim theocracy and also that the Jews either be killed or driven out.

From your article. Why do you think Palestinians are fundamentally evil? That is what you are basically implying here.

Islam is fundamentally evil and most 'Palestinians' are muslim.

Yeah. My explanation was confusing, IP got it right. Not all religious people are terrorists. Some let others live the way they want to live, and that's fine by me. It's simple, if you go around telling people they're going to hell then you're instilling a basic fear in them. That's on the level with terrorism, imo.

Sorry if I'm being confusing again, I have a knack for it.

That's because you are a very confused young man.

Compare calling homosexuality a sin with a demand for the death penalty under islamic sharia.

 

[gsvol]

The following is well worth reading:

Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield

The brutal murders of the Fogel family, including the beheading of a 3 month old baby, the stabbing a 3 year old twice in the heart, and the murder of both their parents, along with an 11 year old brother who was staying up late reading in bed, have shocked the world. But the Muslim terrorist tactic of massacring families is not a new one. It has been a signature move of the PLO in its various phases, especially the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
------------------

The list goes on endlessly.
-----------------

Samir Kuntar murdered a four year old and became a hero of Lebanon. Syria's president awarded him the Order of Merit, his dictatorship's highest honor. For bludgeoning a 4 year old girl to death.

During his time in prison, Kuntar got married and picked up a degree in political science. In 2008 he was traded to Hezbollah in return for the bodies of captured Israeli soldiers. In Lebanon, Kuntar received a hero's welcome. Al Jazeera's Beirut office chief threw him a party and called him a pan-Arab hero. Is there anything more to say after that?

(And DC tells us al-Jazeera has no agenda?????)gs
-------------------------------------

But demographic war is only half the picture. The other half is to destroy non-Muslim families. To murder pregnant women and massacre their children.

See how many pregnant women there are on this incomplete listing? That is not a coincidence. None of this is. Muslim terrorism is genocide. It is a genocidal struggle to conquer and wipe out non-Muslim populations. As in Israel, as everywhere else. Rape is one tool of Muslim demographic warfare. So is murdering pregnant women and children. Destroying families. They have been fighting it since a maddened would-be prophet began his campaign of extermination against a multicultural region.

This is war. Their kind of war. The attacks on schools and on families. The massacre of entire families is a tactic. Acts of evil by a cult too horrifyingly evil for most people to even understand.

 

[sjt18]

I read all of that but still don't understand why Christians want to impose their views on others. Let God be the judge not everyone on earth.

When it comes to a democratic determination, one side's view is going to win and the other side's view will lose. Christians have just as much right when it comes to marriage to vote their conscience as anyone else. Why would you want to suppress the views of Christians?

And you contradicted yourself in saying that if i believe homosexuality is biological then it's still a choice.

Let me be absolutely clear. Beginning in the 1950's there have been a string of studies attempting to demonstrate a biological cause for homosexuality. They've failed to do so. Many studies have also been run to validate environmental causes with much more success. My personal belief is that the desire for sex is innate. I believe the variations on desires are primarily environmental... and spiritual.

That said... even IF the DESIRES come from some biologically determined, unchangeable characteristic... that act of sex is a choice. If you are heterosexual then you might say that you "can't help" being attracted to a woman or desiring to have sex. You CAN deny those desires and not have sex.

Also, there have been studies that show that your thoughts can actually change the chemical reactions in your brain. That really fits well with a biblical concept. Your thought life leads to attitudes. Attitudes determine actions. Have you ever let a bad word slip in front of someone and then say "I didn't mean to say that?" The truth is that you have not disciplined your thought life when it comes to those words.

But I do believe homosexuality is on the same level. Discrimination is the same, doesn't matter who it's against. just because the bible says it's wrong doesn't mean everyone think that way.

No. Behavior based discrimination can NEVER be placed on the same level, at least not through direct association, as discrimination based on benign characteristics like race and sex.

You say discrimination is the same but readily admit that you would support forcing a religiously convicted business owner to support a lifestyle he believes is wrong, correct?

Just because you and others do not think that it is wrong does not mean that everyone should think that way or be forced to act as if they do.

Again, you are trying to impose your moral standard onto others while accusing others of doing so. I do not support laws to prevent or discriminate against homosexuals with regard to their legitimate Constitutional rights. Marriage simply isn't one of those rights.

FWIW, I think it would be perfectly legitimate for a homosexual to refuse to hire Christians at his business. I firmly believe the 1964 Civil Rights Act went to far in forbidding religious discrimination in private sector activities.

 

[rmsmith]

How would legalizing gay marriage suppress the views of christians? If it is legal no one is forced to do it. It's just available. Christians would still be able to be against gay marriage, but people that do not practice Christianity would be able to have more freedom in marrying whomever they want.

Personally I believe a business owner should be able to deny services to whoever they want. But the government shouldn't.