Poster Child for Legalization? Chattanooga Shooter had multiple addictions

[emilynghiem]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.

This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.

It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

Dear G.T.
If the couples are paying for their own benefits then why not separate it completely by party?
So there is no doubt they are funding it themselves. It is clearly not the responsibility of people
who don't recognize either same sex marriage or who believe ALL social legislation is unconstitutional
and NO such programs should be run through govt. All beliefs would be satisfied by separating the tracks.

And only keeping the AGREED programs through federal govt.
That would clearly be public policy and authority if all people CONSENT to that.

The health care issue and now the prison reform and immigration
issues may also require separating by party to allow direct accountability where people
don't trust each other's means of management.

Might as well fix everything if you are going to put the whole car in the shop
for a major overhaul!

You just stumped for "seperate but equal," something ruled constitutionally invalid.

Youre literally arguing for jim crow laws "seperated by party and according to sexual orientation."


You make me sick, vile thing.

A. Re: compare and contrast with "Jim Crow" laws
^ BTW G.T. the difference with Jim Crow laws
is they put restrictions on voting that indirectly targeted and excluded "certain groups" but not "other groups"

I am saying that unless all people agree on the laws
take them ALL off the books and out of the state govt.

So there are no laws that favor one group over another.

NOT leave unequal standards or conditions in that favor the bias or belief
of some people and restrict access by others. Remove them ENTIRELY until people agree on equal rules.

So my approach would be like if people don't agree on the rules of voting
because it favors one party's members or another's
then I'd say
1. keep the voting for political candidates and partisan policies
private within each party and out of public govt.
You wouldn't have voting for Baptist or Catholic leaders mixed with public institutions.
Why not treat political parties and beliefs the same as religious institutions?
2. OR make CONSENSUS the standard for deciding personal policies that involve political beliefs,
so nobody can abuse majority rule or partisan ruling to push one belief over another
when it comes to something as sensitive and unchangeable as people's personal beliefs.

Anything contested as a conflict between religious secular or political beliefs
would be decided by consensus between the various people, groups or parties affected.
And if they can't agree, but they agree to disagree, that means to separate policies instead of imposing
and compromising one group's beliefs for the other's.

So that is bypassing the contested conditions altogether.
I believe in resolving the conflicts so nobody's rights, freedoms, or equal protection is infringed upon.

B. RE: "civil marriage"
if people have religious issues with using the word "marriage"
then I would stick with "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
if that's what it takes to pass a neutral policy without religious implications or conflicts.

This is similar to not using references to God or Heaven
in public documents or institutions, if it raises issues with Atheists
or secular humanists who object to that on religious grounds.

If people cannot agree on "marriage" then call it something else.

If the issue is "social legislation" that people object to as outside govt authority,
that is where I would support structuring it by party, where people AGREE what
to fund and not fund on AGREED terms and conditions, so it doesn't impose
on people's beliefs who only support limited govt and don't believe federalized
social programs are constitutional.

If we stick to where we AGREE, this represents all people.
We should reward people with tax breaks for investing in sustaining
their own programs and not overburdening federal govt with that,
especially where people have conflicting beliefs.

 

[MaryL]

Chattanooga Shooter Researched Religious Justification For Violence Official - Yahoo

Ok so not only did this guy self-medicate, but had issues with drunk driving, abuse of both legal and illegal drugs,
and who knows if he had any paranoid delusions made worse by marijuana.

But all the politically correct sources will say:
* marijuana causes no harm and is non-addictive
* marijuana does not cause paranoia or alter anyone's personality
* nobody ever died from using marijuana

All across the country, while people are pushing to legalize drugs, not punish the choice of drug use, and not to hold drug users accountable for any health care costs or issues they may self-induce by such choices,

at the same time, the choice of how to pay for health care is regulated, restricted and punished with a fine if a citizen chooses another way to pay besides buying insurance.

And this is claimed as holding people responsible.

But not people who do drugs? Drug users deserve their freedom to do whatever and be trusted to pay the cost of those choices; but not law abiding taxpayers who aren't trusted to choose their own way of paying for health care? They have to be threatened with punishment, to take responsibility for their health, but not drug users?

Why is THAT choice more important to be freed from restriction, regardless of the risk to one's health and finances, but the choice to pay for health care is regulated and fined where citizens are NOT trusted with THAT choice?

Makes no sense. If this type of politics doesn't drive you crazy, you were already there!

Blah blah blah. He was a Muslim terrorist . Let's stop splitting hairs. Enough.

 

[G.T.]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.

This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.

It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

Dear G.T.
If the couples are paying for their own benefits then why not separate it completely by party?
So there is no doubt they are funding it themselves. It is clearly not the responsibility of people
who don't recognize either same sex marriage or who believe ALL social legislation is unconstitutional
and NO such programs should be run through govt. All beliefs would be satisfied by separating the tracks.

And only keeping the AGREED programs through federal govt.
That would clearly be public policy and authority if all people CONSENT to that.

The health care issue and now the prison reform and immigration
issues may also require separating by party to allow direct accountability where people
don't trust each other's means of management.

Might as well fix everything if you are going to put the whole car in the shop
for a major overhaul!

You just stumped for "seperate but equal," something ruled constitutionally invalid.

Youre literally arguing for jim crow laws "seperated by party and according to sexual orientation."


You make me sick, vile thing.

Dear G.T.
I understand that there ARE people who push for marriage for traditional couples only,
and then exclude people who believe in gay marriage, right to marriage and marriage equality.

That bigotry that is making you sick applies to people who ARE biased and pushing for
EXCLUSION.

I am saying to AVOID that, then keep ALL marriage out of the state. Treat them all the same.

So no, I am NOT saying for the state to endorse only one side's marriage beliefs
and then keep the "other separate but equal." That IS discrimination and clearly
unconstitutional to exclude people based on differences in beliefs.

I am saying to keep BOTH out of the state so they remain private and fully up to the freedom of individuals regardless of beliefs and views.

I am NOT saying to "endorse one and reject the other" which I agree is discriminatory and so I oppose that as unlawful!

I am saying to respect "separation of church and state" and keep conflicting BELIEFS out of govt.

I support Buddhism, Christianity, and all other beliefs as equally free to practice,
but I would say the SAME THING when it comes to mixing ANY of these with Govt:

If people cannot agree, then leave it out of Govt policy. I am NOT saying to endorse one belief
and keep the others separate. I am saying to treat ALL beliefs the same and keep ALL of them out of govt. (unless there is agreement, like if all people AGREE to keep references to God on public money, or agree to keep references to "Justice" in our laws which is equally a FAITH based concept and not proven to exist either. if people AGREE on a faith-based policy,
then if the public passes a law and nobody objects on religious grounds, that is still a law by consensus and not violating anyone's beliefs if everyone CONSENTS to it)

G.T. just because I support Catholics running their own churches and deciding their own policies on communions, on priesthood qualification, on marriage and divorce,
and I support Baptists running their own churches, and Mormons and Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, etc.

Does that mean I am pushing for "separate but equal" as a form of "religious segregation"?

I am merely RECOGNIZING that people already CHOOSE to segregate by their different cultural beliefs and traditions, and already have equal freedom,
rights and responsibilities in governing their own institutions by the rules and beliefs they share.

People do this naturally! So I am saying do the same thing with marriage,
and organize with the people who believe in the same policies and standards.
If it is all organized by free choice and freedom of association, then NOBODY is being
excluded or treated as less than equal. All groups should be equally respected in practicing their own beliefs.

You ARE saying...

end all state marriage

BECAUSE bigots wouldnt be equally represented if we dont


so to avoid conflict with BIGOTS...
get rid of state marriage altogether.




see what you're doing?


yea, i know you dont.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.

This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.

It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

Dear G.T.
If the couples are paying for their own benefits then why not separate it completely by party?
So there is no doubt they are funding it themselves. It is clearly not the responsibility of people
who don't recognize either same sex marriage or who believe ALL social legislation is unconstitutional
and NO such programs should be run through govt. All beliefs would be satisfied by separating the tracks.

And only keeping the AGREED programs through federal govt.
That would clearly be public policy and authority if all people CONSENT to that.

The health care issue and now the prison reform and immigration
issues may also require separating by party to allow direct accountability where people
don't trust each other's means of management.

Might as well fix everything if you are going to put the whole car in the shop
for a major overhaul!

You just stumped for "seperate but equal," something ruled constitutionally invalid.

Youre literally arguing for jim crow laws "seperated by party and according to sexual orientation."


You make me sick, vile thing.

Dear G.T.
I understand that there ARE people who push for marriage for traditional couples only,
and then exclude people who believe in gay marriage, right to marriage and marriage equality.

That bigotry that is making you sick applies to people who ARE biased and pushing for
EXCLUSION.

I am saying to AVOID that, then keep ALL marriage out of the state. Treat them all the same.

So no, I am NOT saying for the state to endorse only one side's marriage beliefs
and then keep the "other separate but equal." That IS discrimination and clearly
unconstitutional to exclude people based on differences in beliefs.

I am saying to keep BOTH out of the state so they remain private and fully up to the freedom of individuals regardless of beliefs and views.

I am NOT saying to "endorse one and reject the other" which I agree is discriminatory and so I oppose that as unlawful!

I am saying to respect "separation of church and state" and keep conflicting BELIEFS out of govt.

I support Buddhism, Christianity, and all other beliefs as equally free to practice,
but I would say the SAME THING when it comes to mixing ANY of these with Govt:

If people cannot agree, then leave it out of Govt policy. I am NOT saying to endorse one belief
and keep the others separate. I am saying to treat ALL beliefs the same and keep ALL of them out of govt. (unless there is agreement, like if all people AGREE to keep references to God on public money, or agree to keep references to "Justice" in our laws which is equally a FAITH based concept and not proven to exist either. if people AGREE on a faith-based policy,
then if the public passes a law and nobody objects on religious grounds, that is still a law by consensus and not violating anyone's beliefs if everyone CONSENTS to it)

G.T. just because I support Catholics running their own churches and deciding their own policies on communions, on priesthood qualification, on marriage and divorce,
and I support Baptists running their own churches, and Mormons and Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, etc.

Does that mean I am pushing for "separate but equal" as a form of "religious segregation"?

I am merely RECOGNIZING that people already CHOOSE to segregate by their different cultural beliefs and traditions, and already have equal freedom,
rights and responsibilities in governing their own institutions by the rules and beliefs they share.

People do this naturally! So I am saying do the same thing with marriage,
and organize with the people who believe in the same policies and standards.
If it is all organized by free choice and freedom of association, then NOBODY is being
excluded or treated as less than equal. All groups should be equally respected in practicing their own beliefs.

You ARE saying...

end all state marriage

BECAUSE bigots wouldnt be equally represented if we dont

so to avoid conflict with BIGOTS...
get rid of state marriage altogether.

see what you're doing?

yea, i know you dont.

I am saying to keep marriage out of the state if people can't agree.

A. But my argument is based on recognizing the Political BELIEFS involved.

My argument is independent of favoring or disfavoring one side or the other.
it is saying because of the CONFLICT between beliefs,
then marriage laws should be removed or REVISED and PASSED BY CONSENSUS
to be politically neutral and devoid of any references that favor or disfavor one belief or another.

It is based on recognizing that people have different BELIEFS.

That's like saying whether I agree or disagree with Hindus, Muslims or Christians
"believing X way is right and Y way is wrong" (and yes, some Christians or Deists including
the Christ Identity denomination of some Klan members, or the Aryan or Jihadist or
Armageddonist / Apocalyptic beliefs of certain groups that are very racist or bigoted against others)
I am merely recognizing that
people have DIFFERENT beliefs, and saying to keep them out of govt.

For the extreme cases, such as cults that practice retributive justice without due process,
I would especially recommend they practice this among their members only who FREELY subscribe to those
beliefs without coercion or duress, and not impose on any other people who don't FREELY agree to follow those rules and conditions.

B. BTW G.T. as for the analogy you made earlier to "allowing slavery according to people's beliefs"
I already answered that people would have to AGREE to subject THEMSELVES to servitude
where it cannot be imposed against people's will or consent. (the example i gave is when people AGREE to donate their time, labor, or resources for charity, but it has to be VOLUNTARY
and cannot be forced. The law I could cite is against involuntary servitude except when prescribed by law as punishment for a crime, where this requires due process and cannot simply be assumed or inflicted on someone for the convenience or beliefs of someone else.)

Two more examples I could show you where we are imposing on people's labor and income
either voluntarily or in some cases involuntarily

A. When we buy products from dollar stores or Wal-Mart that rely on slave labor,
the workers aren't always choosing this by full consent and free choice.
Many of them are forced to endure slavelike conditions that are unsafe, unliveable, unsustainable and unhealthy.
Our govt and economy still depends on this labor until we can restructure it where we can still afford
the goods and services. We'd have to transition toward liveable wages and can't just suddenly change
the laws to ban slave labor yet. In India the push to ban child labor had to account for the fact that more
children would die if child labor were suddenly banned, because the families depended on children to work in order to feed everyone.

B. if you look at the tax rate, the closer it gets to 40%, that's 2/5 of one's salary going to govt and only retaining 3/5 of one's labor and income. So we're almost back to the days of 3/5 free and 2/5 slave, if 40% of what someone earns automatically goes to govt and we don't get to keep that portion of money earned by our labor.

Now G.T. if you are one of the people who sees Govt as representing you, so you don't mind paying 40% of what you earn into Govt, then maybe you don't see it as a slave/master relationship. But to someone who does not feel they have equal say in Govt, this is like forcing them to pay money into a fund and then having no control over where it goes; so it is like 'taxation without representation'.

The same way people would not want to be forced to follow Shariah law or pay money into a Christian program if they don't believe in that or disagree with that policy, Govt policies are that way to some people UNLESS they agree on the laws/institutions necessary as part of Constitutional duty of Govt.

If they don't believe in something, but believe it is unconstitutional,
why not work out the conflicts instead of insulting people over having different beliefs?

I find that inclusion of all people affected and/or concerned about a particular policy
is the best way to address and resolve conflicts.

Just because I seek to INCLUDE people of differing beliefs, does NOT MEAN I agree with
or support those beliefs.

For example, I can agree to work with a paranoid schizophrenic person, by working WITHIN their restrictions
of what they BELIEVE is safe or unsafe for THEM, but that doesn't mean I agree to those
conditions or want to keep them under those conditions. I am just working with people
where they are now with their beliefs, INCLUDING them in the democratic process,
so the issues can be worked out without fighting over who is excluding whom.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-opt Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context. And Muhamed was nothing more than a pedophile murderers; so are the most devout Muslims.

 

[G.T.]

Dumb dumb dumb.

Marriage law is ALREADY WRITTEN to represent all beliefs.

What it doesnt do is EXCLUDE the gay's beliefs.


And therein lies your blatant phoniness.

Youre arguing against a problem that DOESNT EXIST.

WHO IS EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE LAW.

NOT GAYS.
NOT STRAIGHTS.

EQUALLY REPRESENTED. FINALLY


You could only fight that in respect to appeasing BIGOTS.

PERIOD.

THEREIN LIES YOUR PHONINESS AGAIN.

AGAIN, marriage law is ALREADY written to represent all beliefs, to the exclusion of noone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-ot Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context.

Dear TheGreatGatsby

if Muslims and Christians and other believers are really following Scripture,
Matthew 18:15-20 prescribes the steps to redressing grievances between such fellow believers
where there has been a trespass. Bearing false witness against a neighbor, or failing to speak the TRUTH with love, but acting as a False Prophet by misrepresenting "false teachings" to others, are considered wrongs that can be brought up for the purpose of correction in Christ by fellow followers of the Bible scripture.

So any Muslims that are falsely teaching Scripture in contradictory ways that conflict with Christianity
can be corrected by applying and enforcing Scriptural instructions as given in Matthew.

The Scriptures say to address that person directly to correct the matter,
then if they do not receive the rebuke, bring 1-2 more witnesses to establish the truth by agreement,
and if that doesn't work then "tell it unto the church"

When this process is following in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice,
the mediation works to bring fellow believers to agreement on truth.

Most of the failures I see are that people start criticizing whole groups, which divides them even further
and blocks communication, and don't correct one by one which would resolve errors and build consensus.

To counteract this problem, we have to start over and address each other one-on-one,
correct the problems dividing us, and then build from there. Eventually all the misteachings
can be corrected by reaching all people in this process multiplied.

So whatever people are running around teaching the wrong impression of Christ and the Bible,
all this can eventually be corrected. The Jewish also have their groups, where some people
teach denial of Jesus, others full embrace Christianity. And yet others understand Jesus
as "civil justice under natural laws" but don't follow the Scriptural laws and authority to invoke Justice that way.

The same process it takes to reconcile with either Jews Muslims or Christians in the universal spirit of truth,
even with polarized differences between their respective cultures,
can also address and resolve conflicts with any other group as well.

Reaching agreement in truth by free choice sets us free from fear of conflicts.
What matters more than label or denomination, is whether people can Forgive and INCLUDE each other.

So this isn't limited to just the issues with Muslims and/or Jihadists, but ANY group that encourages
DIVISION or REJECTION can change through the process of redressing grievances to Reconcile and Unite.

There are LOTS of groups that misrepresent the meaning and message symbolized by God, Jesus and the Bible. And all cases can be resolved by following Scripture on restoring good faith relations with each person.

 

[Moonglow]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-opt Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context. And Muhamed was nothing more than a pedophile murderers; so are the most devout Muslims.

you left out the Jews and how they don't believe Christ was the Messiah.,...and made sure of his imminent death...

 

[Moonglow]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-ot Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context.

Dear TheGreatGatsby

if Muslims and Christians and other believers are really following Scripture,
Matthew 18:15-20 prescribes the steps to redressing grievances between such fellow believers
where there has been a trespass. Bearing false witness against a neighbor, or failing to speak the TRUTH with love, but acting as a False Prophet by misrepresenting "false teachings" to others, are considered wrongs that can be brought up for the purpose of correction in Christ by fellow followers of the Bible scripture.

So any Muslims that are falsely teaching Scripture in contradictory ways that conflict with Christianity
can be corrected by applying and enforcing Scriptural instructions as given in Matthew.

The Scriptures say to address that person directly to correct the matter,
then if they do not receive the rebuke, bring 1-2 more witnesses to establish the truth by agreement,
and if that doesn't work then "tell it unto the church"

When this process is following in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice,
the mediation works to bring fellow believers to agreement on truth.

Most of the failures I see are that people start criticizing whole groups, which divides them even further
and blocks communication, and don't correct one by one which would resolve errors and build consensus.

To counteract this problem, we have to start over and address each other one-on-one,
correct the problems dividing us, and then build from there. Eventually all the misteachings
can be corrected by reaching all people in this process multiplied.

So whatever people are running around teaching the wrong impression of Christ and the Bible,
all this can eventually be corrected. The Jewish also have their groups, where some people
teach denial of Jesus, others full embrace Christianity. And yet others understand Jesus
as "civil justice under natural laws" but don't follow the Scriptural laws and authority to invoke Justice that way.

The same process it takes to reconcile with either Jews Muslims or Christians in the universal spirit of truth,
even with polarized differences between their respective cultures,
can also address and resolve conflicts with any other group as well.

Reaching agreement in truth by free choice sets us free from fear of conflicts.
What matters more than label or denomination, is whether people can Forgive and INCLUDE each other.

So this isn't limited to just the issues with Muslims and/or Jihadists, but ANY group that encourages
DIVISION or REJECTION can change through the process of redressing grievances to Reconcile and Unite.

There are LOTS of groups that misrepresent the meaning and message symbolized by God, Jesus and the Bible. And all cases can be resolved by following Scripture on restoring good faith relations with each person.

No, no it can't. Even Christians can't agree on scriptural doctrines...

 

[emilynghiem]

Dumb dumb dumb.
Marriage law is ALREADY WRITTEN to represent all beliefs.

What it doesnt do is EXCLUDE the gay's beliefs.

And therein lies your blatant phoniness.

Youre arguing against a problem that DOESNT EXIST.

WHO IS EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE LAW.

NOT GAYS.
NOT STRAIGHTS.

EQUALLY REPRESENTED. FINALLY

You could only fight that in respect to appeasing BIGOTS.

PERIOD.

THEREIN LIES YOUR PHONINESS AGAIN.

AGAIN, marriage law is ALREADY written to represent all beliefs, to the exclusion of noone.

Sorry but no. Implementing social benefits through the govt
already has been violating the beliefs of people who consider this Unconstitutional
and outside the duty of govt.

There are lots of laws and govt programs that violate beliefs.
Abortion laws, the death penalty, etc. these are being challenged one by one.

G.T. even MY beliefs are EXCLUDED regarding Constitutional equal inclusion, Constitutional ethics
about not endorsing partisan beliefs, isonomy instead of unequal influence by major parties and corporations over smaller groups of people without equal resources or legal defense, and equal protection of the laws by mediating conflicts and using Consensus as the standard when making decisions involving faith-based beliefs.

Lots of people are left out of these laws that are passed but don't represent our beliefs.

It seems you are only considering ONE viewpoint.
I am seeking ways to equally represent ALL these views.
And that is why i am recommending either an agreement on policy
or removing things from govt we don't all believe are authorized,
and find most efficient ways and means of managing resources and programs
that we DO agree to take legal and financial responsibility for.

I am taking an ALL inclusive approach, and again, that does NOT mean
I AGREE or ENDORSE any of these views.

To start with NEUTRAL when mediating conflicts, ALL people and
their views must be included. The objective starting point is to accept
where all people are coming from, work from there, and hash out
points of agreement that we can build public policy around.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-opt Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context. And Muhamed was nothing more than a pedophile murderers; so are the most devout Muslims.

you left out the Jews and how they don't believe Christ was the Messiah.,...and made sure of his imminent death...

How does that change anything that I've said? Oh, it doesn't.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-ot Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context.

Dear TheGreatGatsby

if Muslims and Christians and other believers are really following Scripture,
Matthew 18:15-20 prescribes the steps to redressing grievances between such fellow believers
where there has been a trespass. Bearing false witness against a neighbor, or failing to speak the TRUTH with love, but acting as a False Prophet by misrepresenting "false teachings" to others, are considered wrongs that can be brought up for the purpose of correction in Christ by fellow followers of the Bible scripture.

So any Muslims that are falsely teaching Scripture in contradictory ways that conflict with Christianity
can be corrected by applying and enforcing Scriptural instructions as given in Matthew.

The Scriptures say to address that person directly to correct the matter,
then if they do not receive the rebuke, bring 1-2 more witnesses to establish the truth by agreement,
and if that doesn't work then "tell it unto the church"

When this process is following in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice,
the mediation works to bring fellow believers to agreement on truth.

Most of the failures I see are that people start criticizing whole groups, which divides them even further
and blocks communication, and don't correct one by one which would resolve errors and build consensus.

To counteract this problem, we have to start over and address each other one-on-one,
correct the problems dividing us, and then build from there. Eventually all the misteachings
can be corrected by reaching all people in this process multiplied.

So whatever people are running around teaching the wrong impression of Christ and the Bible,
all this can eventually be corrected. The Jewish also have their groups, where some people
teach denial of Jesus, others full embrace Christianity. And yet others understand Jesus
as "civil justice under natural laws" but don't follow the Scriptural laws and authority to invoke Justice that way.

The same process it takes to reconcile with either Jews Muslims or Christians in the universal spirit of truth,
even with polarized differences between their respective cultures,
can also address and resolve conflicts with any other group as well.

Reaching agreement in truth by free choice sets us free from fear of conflicts.
What matters more than label or denomination, is whether people can Forgive and INCLUDE each other.

So this isn't limited to just the issues with Muslims and/or Jihadists, but ANY group that encourages
DIVISION or REJECTION can change through the process of redressing grievances to Reconcile and Unite.

There are LOTS of groups that misrepresent the meaning and message symbolized by God, Jesus and the Bible. And all cases can be resolved by following Scripture on restoring good faith relations with each person.

No, no it can't. Even Christians can't agree on scriptural doctrines...

That's not really the point at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-opt Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context. And Muhamed was nothing more than a pedophile murderers; so are the most devout Muslims.

you left out the Jews and how they don't believe Christ was the Messiah.,...and made sure of his imminent death...

Hi Moonglow I did mention there are some Jews that don't
and some Jews that do, some of the Messianic Jews,
and other Christians who still consider themselves Jewish by culture.

Look up Peter Loth who is Jewish but teaches the Gospel of Christ as redemption by Grace and Forgiveness.

There are some Jews who are actually Secular Gentiles and follow natural laws
that STILL lead to understanding of Justice and Peace but may not call this Christ Jesus.
The spirit and path of Restorative Justice is still one and the same, whether this is symbolized
using Jesus or just taught as a natural law process. It still involves the same steps of
forgiveness and inclusion to seek corrections to heal injustices, wrongs and errors otherwise dividing people.

All people believe in some approach to Justice, and the point is to get on the same page so
we can achieve a shared sense of peace and justice in more collaborative, effective and sustainable ways.

 

[emilynghiem]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

Muslims tried to co-ot Old Testament scriptures as they demoted Christ to merely a prophet under Muhammed. Of course, evil has it's rouses, dude. And the Quran is evil in its text; that's the context.

Dear TheGreatGatsby

if Muslims and Christians and other believers are really following Scripture,
Matthew 18:15-20 prescribes the steps to redressing grievances between such fellow believers
where there has been a trespass. Bearing false witness against a neighbor, or failing to speak the TRUTH with love, but acting as a False Prophet by misrepresenting "false teachings" to others, are considered wrongs that can be brought up for the purpose of correction in Christ by fellow followers of the Bible scripture.

So any Muslims that are falsely teaching Scripture in contradictory ways that conflict with Christianity
can be corrected by applying and enforcing Scriptural instructions as given in Matthew.

The Scriptures say to address that person directly to correct the matter,
then if they do not receive the rebuke, bring 1-2 more witnesses to establish the truth by agreement,
and if that doesn't work then "tell it unto the church"

When this process is following in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice,
the mediation works to bring fellow believers to agreement on truth.

Most of the failures I see are that people start criticizing whole groups, which divides them even further
and blocks communication, and don't correct one by one which would resolve errors and build consensus.

To counteract this problem, we have to start over and address each other one-on-one,
correct the problems dividing us, and then build from there. Eventually all the misteachings
can be corrected by reaching all people in this process multiplied.

So whatever people are running around teaching the wrong impression of Christ and the Bible,
all this can eventually be corrected. The Jewish also have their groups, where some people
teach denial of Jesus, others full embrace Christianity. And yet others understand Jesus
as "civil justice under natural laws" but don't follow the Scriptural laws and authority to invoke Justice that way.

The same process it takes to reconcile with either Jews Muslims or Christians in the universal spirit of truth,
even with polarized differences between their respective cultures,
can also address and resolve conflicts with any other group as well.

Reaching agreement in truth by free choice sets us free from fear of conflicts.
What matters more than label or denomination, is whether people can Forgive and INCLUDE each other.

So this isn't limited to just the issues with Muslims and/or Jihadists, but ANY group that encourages
DIVISION or REJECTION can change through the process of redressing grievances to Reconcile and Unite.

There are LOTS of groups that misrepresent the meaning and message symbolized by God, Jesus and the Bible. And all cases can be resolved by following Scripture on restoring good faith relations with each person.

No, no it can't. Even Christians can't agree on scriptural doctrines...

Yes and no.
Where there is forgiveness, yes, we can reach agreement on solutions even if we have disagreement on other points. We can forgive those differences and focus on what we AGREE will work REGARDLESS of conflicts.

The key is forgiveness, and I've even found Atheists teaching forgiveness in order to work with more people in productive ways, faith or no faith, differences or not.

As for agreeing on all scripture, that may not be necessary.
I have friends who only want to follow the literal Bible and I disagree.
Not everyone may ever agree to include Buddhists as Gentiles under natural laws equally given by God
through a separate path that Jesus also fulfills but as Equal Justice under secular laws, or as Restorative Justice.

Some people don't make that leap and can't agree this is the same spirit of truth given by the same God/Source but presented in a different language. People don't have to agree with me for me to be able to speak their language and agree with them. If they can't handle Buddhism, fine,
I'll speak their language using Christianity. And vice versa, one of my friends absolutely cannot stand any of the Christian references, so I only use his secular terms when discussing spiritual process and concepts with him.

What matters is that we focus where we DO agree.

I have prolife friends who don't agree on abortion being legal,
but we agree we don't want to CRIMINALIZE and penalize the women more than the men who are equally responsible for the sex that led to the pregnancy (if not more responsible in the case of rape or incest)

We may not agree on the laws on abortion,
but we agree to help women and stop the relationship abuse and sexual abuse
causing most of these problems too easily dumped on the women to suffer the consequences of.

Even if we disagree on what to do AFTER the fact,
we agree to work on prevention of unwanted pregnancy and abortion in the first place.

Same with disagreeing on the death penalty --
but agreeing to work on earlier intervention to stop the cycle of abuse, destruction, addiction, crime, mental and criminal illness, and anything else that otherwise leads up to murder so we can act on the PREVENTION side.

You don't have to agree on everything across the board,
just agree on one solution, one good focus or starting point to take
and that's enough to redirect resources more productively and not be so distracted by where we disagree.

There will always be more points of disagreement than agreement.
But that's why it is so important to find where we do agree, and include that in the equation.
Finding the diamond, that is tiny in comparison with the rest of the coal, is actually more valuable.

 

[G.T.]

Youre a loon emily, and a bigot

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily should muslims have a seperate "party" where theyre equally represented and allowed to stone gays?

Equally as ridiculous.

You want the LAW to recognize a RELIGIOUS grievance with CIVIL (not religious) marriage, due to BIGOTRY against gays.

This is the USA.

We dont do that here, bigot

Dear G.T.
1. They can have their own courts similar to Native American tribunals, or Teen Courts that are coordinated through schools as part of their educational activities and school policy enforcement. At Rice where I graduated, there is a separate Honor Council where students conduct elections and manage the process of investigating and issuing penalties for honor code violations.

2. No, there is no religious activity that can violate laws. Anything that crosses over and violates either civil laws or criminal laws becomes an issue with the state or federal govt that polices those laws.

But yes, within the bounds of religious freedom that is exercised lawfully, sure, people can conduct their own inhouse courts and process. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own process, though there are bad reports of abuses similar to the Catholic authorities who didn't police their own against criminal violations that exceeded their authority but were hidden instead of reported.

So the organizations still need to be taught, trained and held to the same standards of following civil and criminal laws as people are held to, if corporations are treated as legal persons responsible for the same laws as individuals.