"Repent Amarillo" resembles the Fred Phelps cult in more ways than one.
Seriously bad craziness. They seem to be moving out of their Constitutionally protected rights of speech and association and into active intimidation and harassment. Those are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.
http://www.repentamarillo.com/ (http://www.repentamarillo.com/)
Offshoot of Army of God.
"Army of God (AOG) is a Christian terrorist anti-abortion organization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_%28USA%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_%28USA%29)
I am kinda getting the impression by your choice of extreme post that you do not like Conservatives, Christians or Texans. ???
I'm a bit confused... I looked over their website, and I didn't see any reference to anything that was outside their constitutional rights. They are encouraging people to pray for and at places that they consider to be anti-Christian.
Who are they intimidating and harassing?
(granted.. I think that their means of marketing seems odd)
Quote from: NM_Shooter on March 03, 2010, 03:36:51 PM
I'm a bit confused... I looked over their website, and I didn't see any reference to anything that was outside their constitutional rights. They are encouraging people to pray for and at places that they consider to be anti-Christian.
Who are they intimidating and harassing?
(granted.. I think that their means of marketing seems odd)
The Texas Observer has an account of Repent Amarillo's relentless harassment of a private swinger's club:
"In June, when the building reopened, Repent Amarillo became an almost-constant presence, shouting through bullhorns, blasting Christian music, haranguing club members, following swingers in vehicles and sticking video cameras into people's faces."
http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone (http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone)
More:
http://www.repentamarillo.net/ (http://www.repentamarillo.net/)
http://amarilloindy.com/2009/010809/Editorial0108.html (http://amarilloindy.com/2009/010809/Editorial0108.html)
Their site is packed with militaristic imagery, and plays audio on some pages with martial music and the sound of gunshots. Their mission statement includes a list of heathen and/or demonic causes that they've marked for destruction.
This is what happens when you live in a society with a 1st amendment guarantee of free speech. They are entitled to spout whatever nonsense they feel like just like I'm entitled to criticize them for those same views. When they stalk people and trespass on private property they're no longer protected by the 1st.
Quote from: StinkerBell on March 03, 2010, 03:25:25 PM
I am kinda getting the impression by your choice of extreme post that you do not like Conservatives, Christians or Texans. ???
I don't like hate groups, regardless of geographic location, political leanings, or religion.
everyone is too busy being angry at each other ....
Quote from: RainDog on March 03, 2010, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on March 03, 2010, 03:25:25 PM
I am kinda getting the impression by your choice of extreme post that you do not like Conservatives, Christians or Texans. ???
I don't like hate groups, regardless of geographic location, political leanings, or religion.
Would it be fair to say you hate "Hate Groups"?
Quote from: StinkerBell on March 03, 2010, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: RainDog on March 03, 2010, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on March 03, 2010, 03:25:25 PM
I am kinda getting the impression by your choice of extreme post that you do not like Conservatives, Christians or Texans. ???
I don't like hate groups, regardless of geographic location, political leanings, or religion.
Would it be fair to say you hate "Hate Groups"?
Think you're gonna catch me in a "There are two things I hate in life, racists and blacks." thing here? I hate those haters? :D
Hate groups are destructive and dangerous. A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society.
It's only reasonable to despise such groups' existence. To ostracize and criticize them vigorously, and to make public their agenda.
To be quite honest, though, I don't think I've ever "hated" anyone.
Quote from: StinkerBell on March 03, 2010, 03:25:25 PM
I am kinda getting the impression by your choice of extreme post that you do not like Conservatives, Christians or Texans. ???
I've got a thing against ignorant morons who spread dangerous misinformation. From their mission statement: (http://www.repentamarillo.com/mission.html)
Quote
Some of the possible missions that these two groups may be called upon to work will be some of the following:
...
4. Breast cancer events such as “Race for the Cure” to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Alot of Christians who happen to be pro life do not realize the link of Susan G Komen and Planned parenthood. That The Komen Foundation grants awards to Planned parenthood. Planned parenthood main focus is abortion.
http://www.bdfund.org/breastcancer.asp
This group is obviously using militant rhetoric to boost membership, and it'll only be a matter of time before some of the more aggressive members will want to put their militant desires into action. We've already seen abortion clinics firebombed and doctors who perform abortions being murdered by a few men who felt words were not strong enough. What will happen if a few hundred people, driven by the militant rhetoric espoused by this group, begin attacking establishments and people they feel are breaking their religious beliefs?
...an almost-constant presence, shouting through bullhorns,haranguing club members,sticking video cameras into people's faces."
Kinda sounds like those abortion clinic protestors, no?
Quote from: pagancelt on March 04, 2010, 09:59:06 AM
This group is obviously using militant rhetoric to boost membership, and it'll only be a matter of time before some of the more aggressive members will want to put their militant desires into action. We've already seen abortion clinics firebombed and doctors who perform abortions being murdered by a few men who felt words were not strong enough. What will happen if a few hundred people, driven by the militant rhetoric espoused by this group, begin attacking establishments and people they feel are breaking their religious beliefs?
Here's the problem, this group has the right to assemble they have a right to be idiots. You can not stop this group IMO for expressing themself or stop them because they might do something or because someone might do something.
Can we point at them and laugh?
Just because your speech is protected doesn't mean you can't be mocked for what you say. We have the right to use the same tactics against them that they use against the targets of their righteous indignation.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on March 04, 2010, 05:01:08 PM
Can we point at them and laugh?
Just because your speech is protected doesn't mean you can't be mocked for what you say. We have the right to use the same tactics against them that they use against the targets of their righteous indignation.
If you want to point and laugh, go for it.
Stinkerbell,
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.
They have the right to express their discontent on certain laws they feel should be illegal.
We do not have to agree with them or their veiws, but they have a right to express them. That is free speech.
I recall a recruiter being at our local High School when we were in Seattle. The parents have decided that the military service was no longer invited to talk to the seniors. It got rather ugly. On the news was a mom just unloading about the war we are currently in and the soldier just kept smiling at her, being respectful and said (paraphrase here, but very close) "Ma'am, I respectfully disagree with your opinon, but I have fought in the gulf to allow you to express that to me and I would fight for your freedoms again"
I'm not disagreeing with their rights to free speech. What I'm disagreeing with is their efforts to take away my rights because of their religious convictions. I'm also disagreeing with their use of militant rhetoric.
I worked security at an abortion clinic and watched a fairly hefty women perform a running tackle on a young woman who was attempting to enter the clinic. The tackled girl actually required treatment at a hospital for her injuries. When arrested, the hefty woman was screaming at the top of her lungs about how we were all going to burn in hell for all eternity because we interfered with her "right" to protect the baby that girl was having murdered. We were, in her and God's eyes, murderers and would be held to the fire on judgment day.
As more religious organization use militancy as a recruitment method and preach for more aggressive tactics to achieve their goals, more people will be injured and killed as their members become proactive.
I am pro life myself. So although I understand the hefty women's position. She did cross the legal line when tackling that young lady. There has been those occasions that people get caught up in mob mentalities.
I do have sympathy for the heavy women. Just think where the world would be today if there where not heavy women to protect the Jews from the Nazi's?
However, dispite my dislike for abortions the young lady has her rights, too. If I was on the jury or the judge I would fine the heavy lady for her actions. But, I am sure there were others protesting within their rights and I would not disburst or say they should stop acting on their rights to protest the clinic.
I don't see the mob mentality. There were no mobs when Scott Roeder shot Dr. George Tiller in a church. Where were the mobs when Paul Hill murdered Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard, retired Air Force Lt. Col. James Barrett, and wounded Barrett's wife? No mobs present when James Kopp murdered Dr. Barnett Slepian either. Where were the mobs when a Planned Parenthood clinic in PA was firebombed? How about the clinics in ILL and CA? Nope, no mobs present.
These are just a few examples. There are no mobs marching through the streets with pitchforks and flaming torches. These are the actions of lone men murdering doctors because they don't agree with abortion laws and they're using violence and murder to frighten other doctors into not performing abortions. Burning down abortion clinic is a method to scare people into not going to work, or to frighten pregnant women away from seeking medical advice and/or abortions.
We're not looking at one person brought to an emotional fervor during wild protests who suddenly, irrationally, charges out to stop an abortion. These are the actions of cold, calculating men bent on murder and destruction who use their religious convictions as an excuse to kill.
What about those who have started church fires? Those who burn down new contrustion homes? Yet others who release lab animals and burn down the labs at Universities?
There are irrational people is all cultures in life.
As for the mob. I had visualized a group protesting outside an abortion clinic and a hefty women got out of control. I am sure that has happened. Well maybe not a hefty women but a skinny man? I am sure there have been many protest that a few individualize act stupid and create chaos.
The WTO pow wow in 99 in Seattle is an example of people wanting to come out and protest and a few individuals came just to create chaos.
Don't forget the guy who burned the Hummer dealership or people who spike trees and break logging equipment. Also we can bring up the protesters at the national conventions.
Unfortunately the people who perform these acts believe their actions to by rational and necessary. I won't argue with you about some people joining the ranks of protesters to cause trouble and I agree that sometimes people can feed off a crowd and perform actions they normally would not.
As for the hefty woman, I remember the crowd was chanting something along the lines of "Don't kill your baby." Every now and then you'd hear someone shout out "murderer." One young lady exited the clinic and was asked "How does it feel to be a murderer?" Another woman asked me if my job was worth an eternity in hell. Nothing would lead me to believe the mob drove her to charge the young lady mentioned earlier, but then I'm not generally prone to extreme acts of irrationality...unless I pound my thumb with a hammer.
The point is people can justify their actions, whether it's through religion, helping animals, or protecting the environment, regardless of how heinous their actions become.
Irrational people aka Nutters will always justify their actions. You can not penalize one group their freedom of speech and right to assemble because that group might have a few nutters among its members. If that is the case this country would have to repeal its rights to free speech and the right to assemble. I believe every group along with every family has a few nutters among them.
Quote from: RainDog on March 03, 2010, 04:22:10 PM
http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone (http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone)
This is what happens when you live in a society with a 1st amendment guarantee of free speech. They are entitled to spout whatever nonsense they feel like just like I'm entitled to criticize them for those same views. When they stalk people and trespass on private property they're no longer protected by the 1st.
I read that article pretty carefully, and still don't see where they exceeded their rights to free speech. The exception being that the details of their protest at the private party were not well described.
If the protesters are on private property owned by the Route 66 club, or the owners of the club, then that is different... but standing on a parking lot owned by the mayor and taking photos and videos is not illegal activity...even if it makes their patrons uncomfortable... that's the whole point of the exercise. If the activity of the patrons is honorable, then there should be no shame in getting their pictures taken. Citizens taking pictures of prostitutes and their clients in public is an effective means for cleaning up a neighborhood.
From the small amount of data I have on them, I support Repent Amarillo's efforts. My kids are older, but I am still embarrassed to have to be out and about and have to be faced with advertising that promotes a level of (what we consider to be) perverted sexuality and the rapid acceptance / promotion of these practices via mainstream media. We don't participate in a lot of TV because of this, but even broadcast TV advertisements during prime time has stuff that I don't want my kids viewing. We vote with our wallets and turn it off, don't have cable, and are pretty careful with internet use.
I'm strongly in favor of people being able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as no one is hurt.., and thier emissions stay on their property. Bring it out onto the street, or create businesses to promote perversion, and the rules change.
Quote from: pagancelt on March 08, 2010, 07:23:12 AM
Stinkerbell,
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.
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.
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."
Quote from: pagancelt on March 08, 2010, 03:22:44 PM
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.
QuoteNo 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.
QuoteProbably 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.
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.
QuoteAt 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. w*
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.
btw
I may not agree with you guys, but I am sure enjoying the discussion.It's nice share a perspective.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteSex 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."
QuoteI 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).
QuoteI 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. :D
QuoteIntollerance 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.
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.
Reminds me of Benny Hill.... "Well, tat then... "
Quote from: pagancelt on March 08, 2010, 03:22:44 PM
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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....