The Texas Taliban

[pagan]

Stinkerbell,

I never said I believed their rights to free speech should be taken away. What I am saying is that groups supporting militant mindsets will undoubtedly have certain members who take matters into their own hands. Hence we have men shooting abortion doctors and burning abortion clinics. Violent rhetoric begets violence, it's inevitable.

NM_Shooter,

No quid pro quo. How dose having an abortion, drinking alcohol, or watching a porno infringe upon the rights of other people? Have you been forced to drink beer and watch porn? Has any women you know been forced to have an abortion? Probably not, but religious people will use laws to force people to abide by their religious dictates. Prohibition was forced through congress by the religiously led temperance movement. People who enjoy alcohol and porn mostly just want to be left alone. Women wanting an abortion just want the procedure done so they can get on with their lives. When was the last time you saw people protesting in front of churches? I don't see anybody standing in front of churches screaming at those entering and leaving for blaspheming against science. I've never seen a scientist run up to someone entering a church and wrestle him or her to the ground to prevent entry. I don't see children of people who like the occasional beer or porn forcing their children to stand in front of churches holding signs saying God Loves Beer and Porn.

Devoutly religious people, as I have experienced them, desire to have other people abide by their religious convictions. When these people see something they deem blasphemous to their religion they take it upon themselves to see this affront to their God is stopped. It doesn't matter to them what anybody else thinks, feels, or believes. This is only my experience and opinion.

This is my last post to this thread. I really need to listen to Linus, "There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin."

[StinkerBell]

I never said I believed their rights to free speech should be taken away. What I am saying is that groups supporting militant mindsets will undoubtedly have certain members who take matters into their own hands. Hence we have men shooting abortion doctors and burning abortion clinics. Violent rhetoric begets violence, it's inevitable.

What you are suggesting (If I am understanding your position correctly) that we find guilty a group because someone might do something illegal.  Ultimately that is what you are saying.

[IronRanger]

No quid pro quo. How dose having an abortion, drinking alcohol, or watching a porno infringe upon the rights of other people? Have you been forced to drink beer and watch porn? Has any women you know been forced to have an abortion? Probably not, but religious people will use laws to force people to abide by their religious dictates. Prohibition was forced through congress by the religiously led temperance movement. People who enjoy alcohol and porn mostly just want to be left alone. Women wanting an abortion just want the procedure done so they can get on with their lives. When was the last time you saw people protesting in front of churches? I don't see anybody standing in front of churches screaming at those entering and leaving for blaspheming against science. I've never seen a scientist run up to someone entering a church and wrestle him or her to the ground to prevent entry. I don't see children of people who like the occasional beer or porn forcing their children to stand in front of churches holding signs saying God Loves Beer and Porn.

Devoutly religious people, as I have experienced them, desire to have other people abide by their religious convictions. When these people see something they deem blasphemous to their religion they take it upon themselves to see this affront to their God is stopped. It doesn't matter to them what anybody else thinks, feels, or believes. This is only my experience and opinion.

Amen.

[ScottA]

Probably not, but religious people will use laws to force people to abide by their religious dictates. Prohibition was forced through congress by the religiously led temperance movement.

History correction needed here. Prohibition was designed to put gasoline in a top position as the fuel for the new automobile. Sorry to hijack but I couldn't resist.

In 1902, the Paris alcohol fuel exposition exhibited alcohol powered cars, farm machinery, lamps, stoves, heaters, laundry irons, hair curlers, coffee roasters, and every conceivable household appliance and agricultural engine powered by alcohol. [9] This exhibit traveled widely through Europe and was featured at the 1907 Jamestown Virginia tricentennial celebrations.

In 1906, the Free Alcohol bill is passed. The USA repeals the alcohol tax under Teddy Roosevelt. At 14 cents per US gallon, corn ethanol was cheaper than gasoline at 22 cents per US gallon. Bills pass that exempt farm stills from government control. In backing the bill, U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt says: "The Standard Oil Company has, largely by unfair or unlawful methods, crushed out home competition... It is highly desirable that an element of competition should be introduced by the passage of some such law as that which has already passed in the House, putting alcohol used in the arts and manufacturers upon the [tax] free list." [10]

Starting in 1901, the discovery of new oil fields in Texas causes the price of gasoline to drop to between 18 and 22 cents per US gallon by 1906, undercutting farm ethanol markets

In 1908, the Ford Model T is introduced. Early models had adjustable carburetors to run on ethanol or gasoline.

In 1909, the U.S. Geological Survey reports: "In regard to general cleanliness, such as absence of smoke and disagreeable odors, alcohol has many advantages over gasoline or kerosene as a fuel... The exhaust from an alcohol engine is never clouded with a black or grayish smoke." Overall, alcohol was "a more ideal fuel than gasoline." [11]

In 1914, the Free Alcohol bill is amended again to decrease the regulatory burden and encourage alcohol fuel production in the U.S.

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell says: "Alcohol makes a beautiful, clean and efficient fuel... Alcohol can be manufactured from corn stalks, and in fact from almost any vegetable matter capable of fermentation... We need never fear the exhaustion of our present fuel supplies so long as we can produce an annual crop of alcohol to any extent desired."[12]

In 1918, Scientific American says it is "now definitely established that alcohol can be blended with gasoline to produce a suitable fuel ..." [13] Another article notes that the Pasteur Institute of France found it could obtain 10 gallons of ethanol per ton of seaweed. [14]

In 1919, Prohibition of beverage alcohol in the U.S. leads to suggestions for more ethanol use as an anti-knock blend with gasoline. [15] Farm belt politicians are split on ethanol as a fuel. While distillers could have a new market for their alcohol, some thought that allowing any distillery to stay open would be a "bargain with the devil."

The government would never do anything like that would they.

[StinkerBell]

I use to attend Anchorage Baptist Temple many many years ago. I went for a few years. They had protesters. Extreme liberal minded individuals who had signs saying "Jesus was a liberal" and other slogans.  We were yelled at as we enter the property. No one crossed the line, it was for a few weekends. It was back in 1995 or 1996...So, yes there are those who do protest at churches.

Sure wish I could have gone to church peacefully. It was rather upsetting at first, but they stayed on the sidewalk and did not block the cars going in or out. They just was letting us know they were mad over something the Pastor said. I do wish I could recall what Pastor Prevo said, that time.

I consider myself a strong Christian. My position is to introduce those to God. It is not up to me to convict someones heart to believe, but I am here if needed. If you become a Christian there is an expectation that one would try their best to have a Christ led life. We fall and we fail all the time and we are here to help each other, to lift each other and sometimes to correct.I can say that for those of you who do not chose to believe that is fine we do not expect you to adhere to our doctrine. We are not going to beat you with our bibles. At the same time we do get annoyed when we are overwhelemed by things we find offensive. For example, we are forced in many ways to have our children being indoctrinated with things like condoms being passed out to 12 year olds at school.  Intollerance is not a one way street.

[IronRanger]

At the same time we do get annoyed when we are overwhelemed by things we find offensive. We are forced inany ways to have our children being indoctrinated with things condoms being passed out to 12 year olds.  Intollerance is not a one way street.

I find abstinence offensive, but it's usually one or the other in the schools.  Ignorance doesn't make a problem go away.  Kids are going to have sex.  Sex out-of-wedlock.  Extra-marital sex.  Sex over bundling boards.  Oral sex.  Sex happens.  Shame and fear are too often taught through religion.  I'd prefer sex ed wasn't in public schools.  Then again, there are those who wouldn't teach anatomy/physiology.  Reproduction happens.  And, yes, abstinence is sex ed.

I find the added line (it was added in 1954) "under god" in the pledge of allegiance offensive. 

I could go on and on and on...and I suspect everyone else here could too.

The whole point of our Constitution is to balance these offenses out, whether it's religion, government or personal views, we're allowed to have these differences.  Ethically, I'm against murder.  I eat cow though.  Ooh, chicken too.  Morally, I respect a woman's right to choose. 

I'm rambling and it's supper time.   

[StinkerBell]

I have noticed that since the introduction of condoms and the promotion of sexual ativity or I should say the acceptence of it in our public schools we have had issues with the teachers. Seems that we have alot of Mary K Latoruneaus in the schools, I see a correlation.

Sex education imo has been taught in a way that assigns no responsiblity with it. Just the gratification aspect.  

I also know in the past 6 months there was an article out the did the statistics between sex education vs teaching abstinance. (I have to find that article) Teaching Abstinence was more successful. Lower pregancy rate and lower std rate then those who were taught "safe sex"

But the sex education is one of many issues.

I am willing to say that the Church has failed in many ways when it comes to teaching sex and sexuality. Just read Songs of Solomon, it is in some ways a soft porno. I wish the church did not take the appraoch it has in the past.  Sex is a very good thing and King Solomon sure did appreciate it.

[StinkerBell]

btw

I may not agree with you guys, but I am sure enjoying the discussion.It's nice share a perspective.

[IronRanger]

I have noticed that since the introduction of condoms and the promotion of sexual ativity or I should say the acceptence of it in our public schools we have had issues with the teachers. Seems that we have alot of Mary K Latoruneaus in the schools, I see a correlation.

As much as there's a correlation between pedophile priests and how well-hidden and protected they were.  The correlation is that there's a lot more information out there now and it's being exposed.  It existed before.  It was just kept private.  Some things shouldn't be private.

Sex education imo has been taught in a way that assigns no responsiblity with it. Just the gratification aspect.  

I was a license Practical Nurse.  We shadowed a public health nurse during clinicals.  It was in no way preaching instant gratification.  How to put on a condom, yes.  "Will I get pregnant from oral sex?  No."  

I also know in the past 6 months there was an article out the did the statistics between sex education vs teaching abstinance. (I have to find that article) Teaching Abstinence was more successful. Lower pregancy rate and lower std rate then those who were taught "safe sex"

It's easy to find information that supports our world view.  Just ask Glenn.    (hey, I'm a fellow tinfoil hatter).  

I am willing to say that the Church has failed in many ways when it comes to teaching sex and sexuality. Just read Psalms, it is in some ways a soft porno. I wish the church did not take the appraoch it has in the past.  Sex is a very good thing and King David sure did appreciate it.

I should've stayed awake in catechism.  Maybe I'd be more religious.  

Intollerance is not a one way street.

Nor is respect.  I really like your approach, Stinkerbell.  I'm an atheist, but this type of Christian dialogue is how I'd practice.  You're a true gem.

[StinkerBell]

I suggest reading Songs of Solomon. There is an absolute beauty in how King Soloman describes his love for women.

I do not want to tit for tat...I can come up with just as much info that ill demonstrate how others do not do it the way you did as an LPN and you can come up with how some nutter did this. I think we can see both sides have a point.

I would like to focus if you are interested in the "sex' discussion. The church sadly has turn sex into sin instead of addressing the responsibility of it and the passion that goes with it, when they could have focused on the consequence. Just as IMO the schools are teachings or I should say focusing on the gratification of sex instead of the responsibilty and consequence of it. For me this is the median that two sides could come together on.

[glenn kangiser]

Reminds me of Benny Hill.... "Well, tat then... "

[NM_Shooter]

No quid pro quo. How dose having an abortion, drinking alcohol, or watching a porno infringe upon the rights of other people?

That's not what I said.
This is what I stated:
"You certainly can't deny that those in favor of abortion, porn or alcohol also do not care about you our your rights unless you follow them. "

BTW...Since I consider abortion to be murder, I consider that a pretty extreme infringement.

[pagan]

Stinkerbell,

I did some research and found instances where people protested in front of churches, most recently within the last few days when a Catholic school refused a student with lesbian parents. Apologies for being incorrect with my assertion. My opinion is the Catholic school, if it receives no public money and is a private institution, has the right to not accept students for any reason.

I'm not saying groups with militant mindsets should be made illegal, rather I'm saying that militant groups will undoubtedly have militant members, and this militancy will inevitably result with certain members taking matters into their own hands and breaking laws to facilitate their agendas. This stands not only for religious militancy, but also with environmental and animal rights groups. The dilemma is allowing these groups their freedoms which are protected by law while also protecting the public from what certain members of these groups may do to achieve the goals of their groups. This is an extremely complex issue to address.

[pagan]

NM_Shooter,

Here's what I wrote:
"The problem with that argument is they're using the 'free speech' platform while attempting to strip the rights of other people. Abortion, porn, and alcohol would all be illegal if they had their way. And that would just be for starters. Make no mistake, they want to ban anything they believe is against their religion. They do not care about you or your rights, unless you follow them."

Here's your quote:
"You certainly can't deny that those in favor of abortion, porn or alcohol also do not care about you our your rights unless you follow them. 

Quid pro quo."

When I worked at a hospital I never saw people protesting on the maternity ward because those women didn't have abortions. I did, however, see many people protesting when abortions were performed. I've never seen people protesting outside the homes of people who don't watch porn or don't drink alcohol. I have, however, seen protesters outside porn shops and liquor stores. My initial statement cannot be reversed to support your argument as nobody is attempting to take away your right to choose against partaking in any of the aforementioned activities. If some group manages to have laws passed mandating every American must watch at least one porn DVD and drink at least two alcoholic beverages per day then I'll be on your side.

My experiences have led me to the conclusion that some people, religious or not, tend to be greatly offended by people partaking in activities they disagree with even though these activities are protected by law. That's why certain groups push for changing laws to reflect their moralities, like forcing a religious school to accept students from households that do not live in accordance with that particular religion, or banning abortions, porn, and alcohol. Aggressive groups are attempting to legally force their moralities upon others regardless of whether or not everybody agrees with them. That is an extreme infringement upon individual rights because when groups mange to legally take away the right for a person to choose what he or she wants to do, then there is no freedom. Women can choose against having an abortion just as people can choose against watching porn or drinking beer, for whatever reason, but when those who disagree with these freedoms force laws banning abortion, porn and beer or publicly harass people living in discordance with their moral beliefs, they've infringed upon the rights of others to choose to exercise their legal rights. Please don't bring up "What if I want to choose having slaves" or any such statement because I don't desire going any further with this.

Please feel free to retort, respond, or rant, but please don't ask questions, unless rhetorical, as I will no longer respond to this thread. I simply don't have the time to keep riding this merry go round.

[StinkerBell]

Pagancelt,

I am not catholic myself, but suspect you had a catholic up bringing? I agree they catholic church, along with others have had issues.

I am cuirous what you think about my position that the church has failed in its teaching about sex ?

[NM_Shooter]

I think you are missing my point.. it was not about who does what to whom.  It was in regard to your statement :
"They do not care about you or your rights, unless you follow them"

I was pointing out that whether your are part of camp A or camp !A, the above is true.  To claim that only religious types feel this way is blatantly not true.

Let me restate... I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home...as long as their emissions and effects stays on their property. 

The biggest issue is one of desensitization.  Sort of a death by a thousand cuts sort of thing... pretty soon some very nasty stuff seems just fine.  I bet that the fine folks of Sodom thought everything was just kosher.

Really?  You've never seen anyone protest against someone who did not have an abortion?  Just recently, pro abortion types loudly and publicly protested about the Tebow ad for the superbowl.  (This alone shows that "pro-choice" is a facade)

Saying that something is "legal" = it is okay, is also ridiculous... you pointed this out with your comment about slavery.  A woman's right to vote is another example, as is segregation.  Hell, it was "legal" for Germans to gas Jews as well. 

America has a long history of militant groups acting to make changes.  Started in Lexington, if I remember right....