S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Uhh, I didn’t say any of that.
Apart from the bit about the ents.
- Status
Uhh, I didn’t say any of that.
Apart from the bit about the ents.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
You’re against anti-bullying? Do you believe we have the right to demonize or assault people?
government funded and forced abortions ( Freedom Of Choice Act)
Forced abortions? When the US government begin forcing women to have abortions? I think I misunderstood you here or you misspoke.
I know there are individuals in that camp who wish to demonize Christianity, but do you honestly believe there is a serious push to criminalize religious beliefs? This here is pure hysterics.
This is not true. It’s an oft repeated story among conservative circles but there is simply no truth to it whatsoever. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely against hate speech laws, but virtues of honesty require that I tell the truth; that Canada does have a “religious opt out” clause of the sorts. There has been one case of an overzealous prosecutor taking a Canadian cleric to court, but this one case had been overturned upon review.
I personally don’t think so. As of now, we (in the US) don’t have any hate speech legislation, and Gallup poll after Gallup poll shows that the American people do not want them. We’re an odd bunch in that we really love our first amendment rights
How far in the future are you prophesying all this? And what specific true events lead you to think this? Religion is still well respected in the States. I don’t think there’s even so much as a hint of persecution in our near future.
You think the state of our economy is God’s wrath?
God is more than welcome in schools and businesses. No one in the government is stopping him.
Couldn’t agree more.
That’s very optimistic of you. I myself am a little more cynical of the American people.
You’re going to have to define “embrace homosexuality” for me here. In the most literal sense, there has not been a single government in world history that has forced its people to “embrace it”. Who was the last man the US government forced you to have anal sex with?
More assertion without justification. When has a pious person been forced to choose between his religion and forgoing jail due to issues of sex?
For example?
<>
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
<>
These are good ideas regardless of your reasons.
Also great ideas. It’s important that we take advantage of civic life.
Come on, let’s at least try to keep on topic. Simply screaming out all of talk radio’s talking points isn’t going to further our discourse here. This thread is about a law being proposed in the British Parliament concerning against whom churches may discriminate with respect to non-profit, ecclesiastical positions. Nothing about “Merry Christmas”, abortion, or infanticide.
4
4elise
Guest
Thanks for the point of clarity about Englands relationship between the head of state and the head of the (Anglican) church there. I believe this is exactly why we need to be suportive of the seperation of Church and State here in the US - it actually protects the Church, and from what I understand is the reason the founders made this distinction so clear in our Constitution - to avoid the traps that would befall a country with a blurred line, those that are not good for the faithful as well as those that are good for the faithful.
J
Joseph_John
Guest
You’re against anti-bullying? Do you believe we have the right to demonize or assault people?
government funded and forced abortions ( Freedom Of Choice Act)
Forced abortions? When the US government begin forcing women to have abortions? I think I misunderstood you here or you misspoke.
Against pro homosexual legislation that would prevent a christian banquet hall owner from say refusing to rent out for a homosexual reception under the guise of anti-bullying or a priest from refusing to marry a homosexual couple because now his belief of homosexuality as sinful and disordered is hate speech? Yes, I am against that.
FOCA would eliminate conscience clauses which enable doctors to refuse to preform abortions. Kill babies or close shop would be the rule. It also calls for even more taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Sounds like forcing abortions to me.
I know there are individuals in that camp who wish to demonize Christianity, but do you honestly believe there is a serious push to criminalize religious beliefs? This here is pure hysterics.
What is one of the biggest obstacles to having one world government? The Vatican.
This is not true. It’s an oft repeated story among conservative circles but there is simply no truth to it whatsoever. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely against hate speech laws, but virtues of honesty require that I tell the truth; that Canada does have a “religious opt out” clause of the sorts. There has been one case of an overzealous prosecutor taking a Canadian cleric to court, but this one case had been overturned upon review.
My information came from a very reliable source and I will personally investigate it. thank you. We might be okay though it isn’t like we have that type of overzealous prosecutors here in America who would be brazen enough to attempt to sue McDonalds because the food made somebody fat.
I personally don’t think so. As of now, we (in the US) don’t have any hate speech legislation, and Gallup poll after Gallup poll shows that the American people do not want them. We’re an odd bunch in that we really love our first amendment rights
Select groups are trying for hate speech legislation and plenty of polls show that the majority of folks oppose abortion to but we have that don’t we
government funded and forced abortions ( Freedom Of Choice Act)
Forced abortions? When the US government begin forcing women to have abortions? I think I misunderstood you here or you misspoke.
Against pro homosexual legislation that would prevent a christian banquet hall owner from say refusing to rent out for a homosexual reception under the guise of anti-bullying or a priest from refusing to marry a homosexual couple because now his belief of homosexuality as sinful and disordered is hate speech? Yes, I am against that.
FOCA would eliminate conscience clauses which enable doctors to refuse to preform abortions. Kill babies or close shop would be the rule. It also calls for even more taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Sounds like forcing abortions to me.
I know there are individuals in that camp who wish to demonize Christianity, but do you honestly believe there is a serious push to criminalize religious beliefs? This here is pure hysterics.
What is one of the biggest obstacles to having one world government? The Vatican.
This is not true. It’s an oft repeated story among conservative circles but there is simply no truth to it whatsoever. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely against hate speech laws, but virtues of honesty require that I tell the truth; that Canada does have a “religious opt out” clause of the sorts. There has been one case of an overzealous prosecutor taking a Canadian cleric to court, but this one case had been overturned upon review.
My information came from a very reliable source and I will personally investigate it. thank you. We might be okay though it isn’t like we have that type of overzealous prosecutors here in America who would be brazen enough to attempt to sue McDonalds because the food made somebody fat.
I personally don’t think so. As of now, we (in the US) don’t have any hate speech legislation, and Gallup poll after Gallup poll shows that the American people do not want them. We’re an odd bunch in that we really love our first amendment rights
Select groups are trying for hate speech legislation and plenty of polls show that the majority of folks oppose abortion to but we have that don’t we
J
Joseph_John
Guest
How far in the future are you prophesying all this? And what specific true events lead you to think this? Religion is still well respected in the States. I don’t think there’s even so much as a hint of persecution in our near future.
ANN ARBOR, MI – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s May 12, 2009, revised explanation to a congressional subcommittee about her Department’s controversial “Rightwing Extremism” report raises even more questions about her candor and competence to protect our nation from terrorists.
Napolitano originally told Americans that she had been briefed before its release and stood by the “Report.” However, when public outrage over its contents reached a crescendo, she backtracked and told Americans she would have “reworded” the section that labeled returning veterans as potential terrorists. When that did not calm the outrage, she apologized to veterans. Now, Napolitano claims a rogue employee published the report without authorization.
On May 12, 2009, Napolitano told a congressional subcommittee that the Report “was not authorized to be distributed, ” and that it was taken off the Department’s website.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted to her latest explanation, “Our lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano will continue. Since we filed that lawsuit, additional information has been brought to our attention that creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs. Moreover, simply removing the report from the DHS website, without a condemnation of its contents and specific instructions to all the enforcement agencies receiving it that that it should not be used, is merely hiding the evidence of an insidious ongoing agenda to go after conservative Americans. In fact, her comment to the subcommittee that the report is being ‘redone’ and will be ‘much more precise’ in view of her previous linguistic contortions, is too vague to give comfort to conservative Americans.”
Significantly, Napolitano has never apologized or retracted the report’s specific targeting as ‘potential terrorists’ conservative Americans who:
Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, ” which was first made public in a “leaked” Intelligence Assessment violates the civil liberties of American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.
Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.
On April 16, 2009, the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan filed a lawsuit against Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.
The Law Center claims that DHS has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
Want more reason xixxvmcm85? What has history taught us? How are Christians treated in China or Russia? Miguel Pro lived this persecution to death in Mexico in the early 1900’s. I said that I can see it happening. That this is the direction we are headed in. If you really do want more specific and true events please feel free to look up the a series of DVD’s called Silencing The Christians.
ANN ARBOR, MI – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s May 12, 2009, revised explanation to a congressional subcommittee about her Department’s controversial “Rightwing Extremism” report raises even more questions about her candor and competence to protect our nation from terrorists.
Napolitano originally told Americans that she had been briefed before its release and stood by the “Report.” However, when public outrage over its contents reached a crescendo, she backtracked and told Americans she would have “reworded” the section that labeled returning veterans as potential terrorists. When that did not calm the outrage, she apologized to veterans. Now, Napolitano claims a rogue employee published the report without authorization.
On May 12, 2009, Napolitano told a congressional subcommittee that the Report “was not authorized to be distributed, ” and that it was taken off the Department’s website.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted to her latest explanation, “Our lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano will continue. Since we filed that lawsuit, additional information has been brought to our attention that creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs. Moreover, simply removing the report from the DHS website, without a condemnation of its contents and specific instructions to all the enforcement agencies receiving it that that it should not be used, is merely hiding the evidence of an insidious ongoing agenda to go after conservative Americans. In fact, her comment to the subcommittee that the report is being ‘redone’ and will be ‘much more precise’ in view of her previous linguistic contortions, is too vague to give comfort to conservative Americans.”
Significantly, Napolitano has never apologized or retracted the report’s specific targeting as ‘potential terrorists’ conservative Americans who:
Code:
* Oppose abortions
* Oppose same-sex marriage
* Oppose restrictions on firearms
* Oppose lax immigration
* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
* Are suspect of foreign regimes
* Fear Communist regimes
* Oppose a “one world” government
* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
* Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
* . . . and the list goes on.Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.
On April 16, 2009, the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan filed a lawsuit against Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.
The Law Center claims that DHS has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
Want more reason xixxvmcm85? What has history taught us? How are Christians treated in China or Russia? Miguel Pro lived this persecution to death in Mexico in the early 1900’s. I said that I can see it happening. That this is the direction we are headed in. If you really do want more specific and true events please feel free to look up the a series of DVD’s called Silencing The Christians.
J
Joseph_John
Guest
You think the state of our economy is God’s wrath?
I think the state of our economy and society in general with all the schoolyard rampages and massacres is a direct effect of our collective choice as a society to turn from God. An Adam and Eve example of man screwing himself up. The actual wrath of God would be far worse. Blessed Mother warned that countries would fall in her Fatima apparitions due to a turning away from God. But she couldn’t have meant America right? I mean we even write God on our money.
God is more than welcome in schools and businesses. No one in the government is stopping him.
Again you really should take a look at Silencing The Christians. It is full of those specific true events you are looking for.
That’s very optimistic of you. I myself am a little more cynical of the American people.
It has nothing to do with the abilities of the American people. It would be the effects of God’s divinity on the American people.
You think the state of our economy is God’s wrath?
I think the state of our economy and society in general with all the schoolyard rampages and massacres is a direct effect of our collective choice as a society to turn from God. An Adam and Eve example of man screwing himself up. The actual wrath of God would be far worse. Blessed Mother warned that countries would fall in her Fatima apparitions due to a turning away from God. But she couldn’t have meant America right? I mean we even write God on our money.
God is more than welcome in schools and businesses. No one in the government is stopping him.
Again you really should take a look at Silencing The Christians. It is full of those specific true events you are looking for.
That’s very optimistic of you. I myself am a little more cynical of the American people.
It has nothing to do with the abilities of the American people. It would be the effects of God’s divinity on the American people.
You’re going to have to define “embrace homosexuality” for me here. In the most literal sense, there has not been a single government in world history that has forced its people to “embrace it”. Who was the last man the US government forced you to have anal sex with?
It seems as though you are trying to twist my words now. When I say forced embrace of homosexuality, I certainly do not mean a forced, physical, sexual embrace but a forced ideological embrace. Being forced to more or less approve of homosexual lifestyles by the institution of state or federal laws criminalizing opposition to homosexual behaviors as bullying or hate speech by a select and small number of well funded individuals who are trying to push their mentally, emotionally, and physically disordered lifestyle on the majority of the American population by way of the court system. Not happening you say? Ever hear of proposition 8 and its adversaries out in California? It was all over the news again and again. You could always go ask Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O’ Donald or any of their uppity friends what their intentions are.
More assertion without justification. When has a pious person been forced to choose between his religion and forgoing jail due to issues of sex?
Again with the twisting. It is the religion issue period. That is what this whole entire exchange has been about. The sex issue is a subcategory which falls beneath and if you cannot find a religious prisoner then you are not looking very hard because they are in every era of every country since the inception of prison.
For example?
An example of Christians forced into prisons and tortured or killed in an attempt to force renunciation of one’s Christian faith? Once again have you heard of China, or Russia or Mexico?
Come on, let’s at least try to keep on topic. Simply screaming out all of talk radio’s talking points isn’t going to further our discourse here. This thread is about a law being proposed in the British Parliament concerning against whom churches may discriminate with respect to non-profit, ecclesiastical positions. Nothing about “Merry Christmas”, abortion, or infanticide.
The guy said in the original post that in light of this he has concern for it happening to his own church and how if it were tried he would fight and I am showing him how it is happening to his church. All of this is connected.
I think the state of our economy and society in general with all the schoolyard rampages and massacres is a direct effect of our collective choice as a society to turn from God. An Adam and Eve example of man screwing himself up. The actual wrath of God would be far worse. Blessed Mother warned that countries would fall in her Fatima apparitions due to a turning away from God. But she couldn’t have meant America right? I mean we even write God on our money.
God is more than welcome in schools and businesses. No one in the government is stopping him.
Again you really should take a look at Silencing The Christians. It is full of those specific true events you are looking for.
That’s very optimistic of you. I myself am a little more cynical of the American people.
It has nothing to do with the abilities of the American people. It would be the effects of God’s divinity on the American people.
You think the state of our economy is God’s wrath?
I think the state of our economy and society in general with all the schoolyard rampages and massacres is a direct effect of our collective choice as a society to turn from God. An Adam and Eve example of man screwing himself up. The actual wrath of God would be far worse. Blessed Mother warned that countries would fall in her Fatima apparitions due to a turning away from God. But she couldn’t have meant America right? I mean we even write God on our money.
God is more than welcome in schools and businesses. No one in the government is stopping him.
Again you really should take a look at Silencing The Christians. It is full of those specific true events you are looking for.
That’s very optimistic of you. I myself am a little more cynical of the American people.
It has nothing to do with the abilities of the American people. It would be the effects of God’s divinity on the American people.
You’re going to have to define “embrace homosexuality” for me here. In the most literal sense, there has not been a single government in world history that has forced its people to “embrace it”. Who was the last man the US government forced you to have anal sex with?
It seems as though you are trying to twist my words now. When I say forced embrace of homosexuality, I certainly do not mean a forced, physical, sexual embrace but a forced ideological embrace. Being forced to more or less approve of homosexual lifestyles by the institution of state or federal laws criminalizing opposition to homosexual behaviors as bullying or hate speech by a select and small number of well funded individuals who are trying to push their mentally, emotionally, and physically disordered lifestyle on the majority of the American population by way of the court system. Not happening you say? Ever hear of proposition 8 and its adversaries out in California? It was all over the news again and again. You could always go ask Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O’ Donald or any of their uppity friends what their intentions are.
More assertion without justification. When has a pious person been forced to choose between his religion and forgoing jail due to issues of sex?
Again with the twisting. It is the religion issue period. That is what this whole entire exchange has been about. The sex issue is a subcategory which falls beneath and if you cannot find a religious prisoner then you are not looking very hard because they are in every era of every country since the inception of prison.
For example?
An example of Christians forced into prisons and tortured or killed in an attempt to force renunciation of one’s Christian faith? Once again have you heard of China, or Russia or Mexico?
Come on, let’s at least try to keep on topic. Simply screaming out all of talk radio’s talking points isn’t going to further our discourse here. This thread is about a law being proposed in the British Parliament concerning against whom churches may discriminate with respect to non-profit, ecclesiastical positions. Nothing about “Merry Christmas”, abortion, or infanticide.
The guy said in the original post that in light of this he has concern for it happening to his own church and how if it were tried he would fight and I am showing him how it is happening to his church. All of this is connected.
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
As you’d expect, I simply cannot answer this… Why? There’s too much opinion put into it. :ehh: Not that that’s bad, of course–I respect your opinion of what’s truth; I just don’t feel comfortable with challenging opinions. ::dts:Ironically Yours.
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
OK, I can see China and Russia. But Mexico? State sanctioned? Give me examples please, links, news reports.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
A lot of people I know fit that ‘terrorist’ profile.
And glory to God, homosexual ‘marriage’ will never be approved by the Church. Enough is enough. We’re sick of moral relativism. God created not only this world, but the laws that govern it.
Even a little common sense will show you that homosexuals can not and should not ‘marry.’
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Uhm. Ok. That was in 1927. Any recent ones? The poster I am responding to is being quite the alarmist.
E
elts1956
Guest
Originally Posted by Blade and Blood
Ironically Yours.
Now… I promise this has nothing to do with you, but I am astonished how members of Christianity generally dislike the separation of Church and State unless it favors them… I’m sorry, you just reminded of that.
But to the whole “marriage in the public square” thing… that’s kind of the problem; even people within the Church don’t mind gay marriage. And as the generations go by, gay marriage will be more and more accepted. Times change and some beliefs do become obsolete.
Ironically Yours.
Thank you so much for clarifying the difference between facts and opinions. I hope you don’t mind my using your previous comment for my own. Oh, did I miss a FACT in yours? So Sorry.
As you’d expect, I simply cannot answer this… Why? There’s too much opinion put into it. :ehh: Not that that’s bad, of course–I respect your opinion of what’s truth; I just don’t feel comfortable with challenging opinions. ::dts:
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Originally Posted by Blade and Blood
Now… I promise this has nothing to do with you, but I am astonished how members of Christianity generally dislike the separation of Church and State unless it favors them… I’m sorry, you just reminded of that.
But to the whole “marriage in the public square” thing… that’s kind of the problem; even people within the Church don’t mind gay marriage. And as the generations go by, gay marriage will be more and more accepted. Times change and some beliefs do become obsolete.
Ironically Yours.
Thank you so much for clarifying the difference between facts and opinions. I hope you don’t mind my using your previous comment for my own. Oh, did I miss a FACT in yours? So Sorry.
As you’d expect, I simply cannot answer this… Why? There’s too much opinion put into it. :ehh: Not that that’s bad, of course–I respect your opinion of what’s truth; I just don’t feel comfortable with challenging opinions. ::dts:
Oh relax. 
The first one in red is an observation that I’ve noticed. The second is an opinion. But I was referring to the whole “Catholicism is truth” thing. *That’s *an opinion-- or rather, a point of view. Maybe that’s a better way to put it. 
Sorry 'bout that. Didn’t mean to confuse you.
Ironically Yours.
D
Dtmccameron
Guest
Henry, you bastard! Look what’s become of England!!! 
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Ah. FOCA, a beast that I unfortunately know very little about. I’ll have to do some reading, but for now I’ll graciously concede.
This is where I think we’re simply not going to agree. From what I understand (essentially what a law professor told me) anti-discrimination laws (with respect to rendering services) only applies to a business that meets certain size parameters (I believe I remember him saying something about 100 employees, more than one location, etc). The family owned banquet hall that’s small wouldn’t be affected by current American anti-discrimination laws. Anything larger however must give service equally to all Americans. I agree with this stance. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to use religious liberty as a justification for systematic, sales discrimination, no more than one should be allowed to discriminate against those of another religion simply because they’ll be celebrating something that goes against the owner’s religion. What’s to stop a Klansman from citing his religion as justification for refusing service to Blacks in the restaurant he owns? Unfortunately this is a necessary check for a diverse society.
Hate speech aside, this wouldn’t happen unless we were to completely gut the constitution of anything substantive. The courts have very consistently upheld church’s rights to operate in an ecclesiastical sense as they see fit. How long has divorce been legal in the United States? When was the last time you heard of a priest being forced by law to divorce a couple (or to marry two divorcees)? Even in the case of race discrimination, the Mormons were never once brought to task for refusing to marry anyone with African ancestry in their temples.
That’s not good at all. I could understand (though not sympathize with) requiring a hospital in general to offer the procedure, but to force individual doctors to do so? That’s just wrong.
So wait, I don’t want to derail the thread here so if you could answer this via private message: Does FOCA strip individual doctors of the right to opt out, does it require entire hospitals to provide the procedure, or both?
I think the biggest obstacle to a one world government would be cultural disparity and the will of individual nations. It’s simply not practical, and I’ve never seen any evidence of the one-world-government conspiracy that’s so often touted.
No prob. I was up in arms when I first read this in a number of papers. That is until a Const. Lawyer at church informed me that it mostly lies in hysterics.
Moreover, we don’t even have hate speech legislation! How could even the most zealous of prosecutors prosecute a defendant who hasn’t broken any law?
Select groups are also pushing for a socialist revolution in the US. I wouldn’t count on it though.
Select groups are also pushing for the complete eradication of religion, but again I wouldn’t count on it. There are loonies everywhere.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Interesting. I’m curious though, was that list meant to be exhaustive or particular? I would consider someone who fit every single one of those criteria to be suspect. I unfortunately have had the displeasure of meeting true rightwing extremist (usually of the racist variety).
Yes, but please stop moving around. I was under the impression you and I specifically were speaking about the US. I stand by my initial assertion: There’s really no reason for Christians to be alarmed here. Our religious liberties have remained in tact, and (save for the example you gave with FOCA, thanks by the way) are in no present jeopardy that I can see. The only way anyone has been able to make a sound argument so is by doing just as above: appealing to many cases that have little if anything to do with the US.
Oh no thank you! I saw it already. It was awful, argued some points that I later learned were false and in a very disgusting manner demonized anyone who didn’t think as they did. The producers of that film are a prime example of a rightwing extremist. It became extremely boring once it became readily apparent that all they were doing were rehashing the same “examples” that have been disproved since (eg. the case in Canada you pointed out, the case of the "church being forced to marry a lesbian couple in New Jersey, etc.)
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
The fact that some cafeteria Catholics accept homosexual ‘marriage’ will never change the fact that these acts are gravely sinful.Originally Posted by Blade and Blood
Now… I promise this has nothing to do with you, but I am astonished how members of Christianity generally dislike the separation of Church and State unless it favors them… I’m sorry, you just reminded of that.
But to the whole “marriage in the public square” thing… that’s kind of the problem; even people within the Church don’t mind gay marriage. And as the generations go by, gay marriage will be more and more accepted. Times change and some beliefs do become obsolete.
Ironically Yours.
Thank you so much for clarifying the difference between facts and opinions. I hope you don’t mind my using your previous comment for my own. Oh, did I miss a FACT in yours? So Sorry.
As you’d expect, I simply cannot answer this… Why? There’s too much opinion put into it. :ehh: Not that that’s bad, of course–I respect your opinion of what’s truth; I just don’t feel comfortable with challenging opinions. ::dts:
The truth remains intact—you cannot wish it away to go along with the times. Catholic truth is not opinion but Biblical fact and a command of the Eternal Word.
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
Watch your language mate.Henry, you bastard! Look what’s become of England!!!
- Status