Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.
[
The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.
In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?
PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.
When one man is force through threat of government violence, to serve another against his will - that is the definition of "involuntary servitude."
That you of the left have utter contempt for civil rights does not alter reality.
PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.
When one man is force through threat of government violence, to serve another against his will - that is the definition of "involuntary servitude."
That you of the left have utter contempt for civil rights does not alter reality.
PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.
When one man is force through threat of government violence, to serve another against his will - that is the definition of "involuntary servitude."
That you of the left have utter contempt for civil rights does not alter reality.
That you willingly believe the left has utter contempt for civil rights shows you to be a mentally defective idiot.
This puts it in a good nutshell:
Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:
… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.
That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.
But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.
It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.
It ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable.
And it elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance, above the evidence in front of you, because to look honestly at gay, lesbian and bisexual people is to see that we’re the same magnificent riddles as everyone else: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …
… So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.
Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.
The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.
False Dichotomies
Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?
Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?
There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.
And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?
The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.
The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.
What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?It's an opinion that the opinions of others need to be suppressed. Only a Leftist would defend that.Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?
I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh
And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.
Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.
So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.
Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.
Are you mental?
He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.
Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.
Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?
.
Suppressing religious freedom is a human rights violation. That this has to be explained to you is indeed disturbing.Calling for human rights violations is a step in the direction of making it happen, something intelligent people learned because of 1930's Germany. People who defend such disgusting proposals are just as evil.Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?
Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?
There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.
And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?
The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.
The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.
Are you mental?
What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?
It certainly would be. But since this piece did nothing even vaguely like that your comment is irrelevant.
Heart of Atlanta Motel tried the 13th Amendment angle.PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.
When one man is force through threat of government violence, to serve another against his will - that is the definition of "involuntary servitude."
That you of the left have utter contempt for civil rights does not alter reality.
Woosh, right over the quacker's head
Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?
I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh
And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.
Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.
So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.
Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying
I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.
No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?
Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?
There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.
And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?
The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.
The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.
Are you mental?
What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?
When did she try to suppress the writer?
Oh yeah, she didn't.
However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.
Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.
No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.
In other words, sedition.
Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Name one.No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?
Are you mental?
What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?
When did she try to suppress the writer?
Oh yeah, she didn't.
However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.
Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.
No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.
In other words, sedition.
Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority:
Wouldn't that include every right wing rally?
you can however persecute christainsAnother fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.
Is the author suggesting churches be made to accept homosexuality as normal? Why yes, yes he is.
It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance
Yes.The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexualsWhat the hell do you mean by that?
I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.
Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.
The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy
The Founders for just sodomy.
Modern Christians for neither.
Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.
In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?
Do you think that matters?
you can however persecute christainsAnother fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.
Is the author suggesting churches be made to accept homosexuality as normal? Why yes, yes he is.
It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance
He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.
Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.
Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?
We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.
Says you.
All laws are compulsory. By that logic speeding tickets are a violation of the 13th amendment. Alas, what you imagine 'involuntary servitude' to be and its legal and historic definition have nothing to do with each other.
In short, your made up definitions are irrelevant to this discussion.
An argument that might carry some weight if your personal opinion and imagination defined reality. Alas, that's not how reality works. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is legally meaningless. It defines nothing, affirms nothing, effects nothing.
Disagree to your heart's content. No one really gives a shit.
That you willingly believe the left has utter contempt for civil rights shows you to be a mentally defective idiot.
PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.
When one man is force through threat of government violence, to serve another against his will - that is the definition of "involuntary servitude."
That you of the left have utter contempt for civil rights does not alter reality.
That you willingly believe the left has utter contempt for civil rights shows you to be a mentally defective idiot.
Nah, its just libertarianism taken to its logical extreme. Where any coercion is slavery. And all laws are voluntary.
