1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 Next
Topic: Stripping away Christians First Amendment Rights!
no photo
Wed 04/29/09 04:10 AM
Edited by Unknow on Wed 04/29/09 04:14 AM

The people in here who call themselves Christians are hardly Christians because I can clearly see they are more interested in pleasing everyone else than the God they worship.If the Christians would get off their lazy butt and stop worrying about offending people we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.
Now "Your" playing God and judging people!!!!!! You need to quit sinning!!!!!!! You know nothing about me or my beleifs!!!

no photo
Wed 04/29/09 04:12 AM



Since you are denying everything I guess I have to post it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/health/04soda.html?ex=1304395200&en=80149e91b4b733bb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Bottlers Agree to a School Ban on Sweet Drinks
Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Reprints
Save
By MARIAN BURROS and MELANIE WARNER
Published: May 4, 2006
The country's top three soft-drink companies announced yesterday that beginning this fall they would start removing sweetened drinks like Coke, Pepsi and iced teas from school cafeterias and vending machines in response to the growing threat of lawsuits and state legislation.



Ok I know I'm probably wasting my breath but I'll try anyway. Please look at the date on this. I told you I remember it, it is not future law it was past law. I remember when the took all the soda's out of the school. It was a FAILED program (unfortnately I kind of like that one), but the soda went right back into the schools a year later. Again this is not future it's past. And frankly this was not even on your list so I'm not sure why it's here.



I am so done with talking to you.Nothing is worse than debating a person who can't deal with the facts.My whole point to even posting these articles is to show that they do exist,and despite if they got passed or not is to show that there are people everyday trying to pass these stupid laws.There is no doubt in my mind that as the years go by many of these dumb laws will get passed.
So you want to blame everyone you dont consider a Christian for that!!!! Funny those laws(Proposed laws) having nothing to do with religion!!!!!

no photo
Wed 04/29/09 07:00 AM
Edited by boo2u on Wed 04/29/09 07:00 AM

The people in here who call themselves Christians are hardly Christians because I can clearly see they are more interested in pleasing everyone else than the God they worship.If the Christians would get off their lazy butt and stop worrying about offending people we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.


I was thinking that those christians you call lazy, Thomas, don't really have to put out much energy at all, you offend enough for all of them.

no photo
Wed 04/29/09 07:01 AM
Edited by quiet_2008 on Wed 04/29/09 07:02 AM
my dad (the preacher) always says

"If you were arrested and charged with being a Christian. Would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

Fanta46's photo
Wed 04/29/09 08:00 AM


Separate but Unequal Protection
By Matt Barber

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling "hate speech" laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., "gay" and lesbian "sexual orientation" or cross-dressing "gender identity").

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or "transgender" and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous "hate crime" of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard's murder was not a "hate crime" by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard's murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it's needed to curb an epidemic of so-called "hate crimes" committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby. The alarmist propaganda simply doesn't square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as "hate crimes" motivated by "sexual orientation" bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of "hateful" words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by "sexual orientation" bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.

The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News [PDF]) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of "hate crimes" legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable "suspect class" characteristics such as skin color or a person's true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as "homophobic bigots" to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled "gay rights" in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It's a zero sum game and someone has to lose.Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It's a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a "hate crime" to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a "gay pride" parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual's shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony "hate crime."

But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."

Yes, it's a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell's 1984.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=498106

flowerforyou


That's an illegal invasion upon religious freedom by the Gov.

There's supposed to be a separation between Church and State.


If you dont see the contradiction then you are just being hypocritical!

DaveyB's photo
Wed 04/29/09 08:08 AM
Edited by DaveyB on Wed 04/29/09 08:09 AM


That's an illegal invasion upon religious freedom by the Gov.

There's supposed to be a separation between Church and State.


If you dont see the contradiction then you are just being hypocritical!


You're absolutely right. As all but one person in this thread has come to see, the article is totally bogus and has no basis in fact. The fact that it would be illegal should be enough to prove that to most thinking people.

Here is a copy of the actual bill, read it for yourself and you'll see none of that stuff is in there.
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1913_txt.pdf


Fanta46's photo
Wed 04/29/09 08:13 AM
Later!
drinker

adj4u's photo
Wed 04/29/09 08:19 AM

The people in here who call themselves Christians are hardly Christians because I can clearly see they are more interested in pleasing everyone else than the God they worship.If the Christians would get off their lazy butt and stop worrying about offending people we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.


yep all he judging that is going on

that is just totally wrong

i would tend to agree with you when it comes to those that judge others but then i would be judging others and would be equally wrong

but hey

you go man drinker

no photo
Wed 04/29/09 04:09 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 04/29/09 04:11 PM
No one even responded to my post. Sad really, I read the whole thread and I found only a handful of relevant posts and none of them where discussed in any great detail. Its so easy to have so few people make outlandish comments and get all the responses when they deserve none.

This Bill provides money to help people determine and prosecute hate crimes.

The problem is that the legislation for hate crimes (not this bill but what this bill supports financially) is ambiguous and superfluous, and will cause problems for no gain.

That should be the REAL topic of interest.

adj4u's photo
Wed 04/29/09 04:48 PM
Edited by adj4u on Wed 04/29/09 04:49 PM

No one even responded to my post. Sad really, I read the whole thread and I found only a handful of relevant posts and none of them where discussed in any great detail. Its so easy to have so few people make outlandish comments and get all the responses when they deserve none.

This Bill provides money to help people determine and prosecute hate crimes.

The problem is that the legislation for hate crimes (not this bill but what this bill supports financially) is ambiguous and superfluous, and will cause problems for no gain.

That should be the REAL topic of interest.


is that not what i had said

Winx's photo
Thu 04/30/09 06:50 AM
There's a short news clip to watch too.

A Shared St. Louis: Hate crimes

10:33 PM CDT on Tuesday, August 26, 2008

(KMOV)- In A Shared St. Louis, we all feel the impact of hate. News 4's Craig Cheatham reports it can have devastating consequences when it becomes the reason for committing a crime.

The history of hate in America runs deep and wide, even now claiming thousands of victims every year.

A decade ago, three drunk white men in Jasper, Texas beat 49-year old James Byrd, a disabled black man, chained him to their pickup and literally tore Byrd's body apart as they dragged him to his death.

In 1996, the Collinsville, IL, home of Harriett Cannida-Groce and her husband Joseph was firebombed by a white neighbor who attacked the couple because of their inter-racial marriage.

The attack nearly killed their three children. The neighbor was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Although that kind of incident is very unusual, there have been physical assaults, attacks on places of worship and hateful messages delivered in the metro-area in recent years.

That hate must be motivated by something specific about the victims: race, religion, national origin. Federal law does not recognize sexual orientation as a Hate Crime category, many states including Missouri and Illinois, include sexual orientation in state law.

In 2006, law enforcement agencies reported 9,080 Hate Crimes to the FBI. There were 4,700 incidents based on race.

66% of the race-based incidents were targeted at African-Americans

22% involved White victims

19% of the cases involved victims of religion-based Hate Crimes, the overwhelming majority were Jews

15% of the incidents were related to the victim's sexual orientation.

Nearly all of the Hate Crimes reported in 2006 were almost evenly split among damage to property, assault and intimidation. (Vandalism-32%, Assault-32%, Intimidation-28%) There were three murders and six rapes that were also classified as Hate Crimes.

The Hate Crime statistics are based on reports local police filed with the FBI. More than

80% of the police agencies in the United States failed to send the FBI reports last year. Illinois and Missouri law enforcement fell on opposite ends of the scale. 75% of Illinois' police departments filed reports. That’s more than four times the cooperation from Missouri police departments.

In addition, many recent immigrants, especially those from brutal dictatorships, are reluctant to report Hate Crimes to police.

Although most victims are African-American, the most likely victims are Jews, who are the targets of Hate Crimes at nearly double the rate of Blacks. Some victims used the Hate Crime as a reason to move, but many others, including the Groce family, decided to stay, it was after all their neighborhood too.

http://www.kmov.com/justposted/stories/kmov_localnews_080826_shared.169b3f0f.html


Jill298's photo
Fri 05/01/09 07:51 PM
That's an illegal invasion upon religious freedom by the Gov.

There's supposed to be a separation between Church and State.


If you dont see the contradiction then you are just being hypocritical!

It WOULD be illegal if the article was actually TRUE. But it's not. It's an opinion how things are being interpreted.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 Next