UConn coach
- Thread starter Izo
- Start date
it's funny how people these days are more afraid to make the gay and lesbian groups mad over religous groups
Why are protests of the act characterized as people being more afraid of GLBT groups then religious groups but the act it self is not characterized as politicians being more afraid of religious groups then GLBT groups.
it is clear you can offend the religious and not get taken to task by the media and the elites and the elected cattle.
Dare to offend the gays and you will find out what the gay mafia can really do to you; along with their willing accomplices in the media and elsewhere.
It is amazing to me how much political and social clout less than 3% of the population have.
BY that measure the American Indians should have tremendous influence. Wonder why they don't?
Dare to offend the gays and you will find out what the gay mafia can really do to you; along with their willing accomplices in the media and elsewhere.
It is amazing to me how much political and social clout less than 3% of the population have.
BY that measure the American Indians should have tremendous influence. Wonder why they don't?
"It's funny how people these days are more afraid to make the gay and lesbian groups mad over religous groups"
A conclusion based your opinion alone. Many people do believe the Indiana action is wrong-headed, and close not to spend money supporting a community with which they disagree. Not too different from posters on this site who no longer support ND Women's basketball because they wore the "incorrect" T-shirt.
Withhold support because of a potentially discriminatory law or withhold support because of a choice in T-shirt. Which makes more sense?
Is it any wonder why young people are leaving religious groups?
A conclusion based your opinion alone. Many people do believe the Indiana action is wrong-headed, and close not to spend money supporting a community with which they disagree. Not too different from posters on this site who no longer support ND Women's basketball because they wore the "incorrect" T-shirt.
Withhold support because of a potentially discriminatory law or withhold support because of a choice in T-shirt. Which makes more sense?
Is it any wonder why young people are leaving religious groups?
They are leaving religious groups because they kneel at the altar of apple and lefty teachers. Most couldn't tell you when Abe Lincoln was president. A Boston officer was recently shot in the face. Two NY cops were shot and killed. Two NW Indiana officers were shot and killed. No shirts for them? Perhaps that's why some fans have lost interest in the girls program for now. It's only a guess. Perhaps the girls and Muffet should be wearing a shirt with Mother Mary on the front. We need her intercession more than ever right about now. Never happen. Doesn't fit in with the Barkley Kanye image.
what makes me mad more than anything is that this week and weekend is supposed to be all about the four coachs, there schools, there coaching staff and most importantly about the players that made it to championchip weekend that only four teams can make it to but yet all of the gay and lesbian groups plus there celeb supporters like ellen and piliticians are being selfish and taking there hard earned spotlight away by publicly boycotting a game because of a subject that should be settled and talked about another day and not now
I beleive delaying a protest to when it is convenient for those not affected by what being protested is counterintuitive. If protests are supposed to make people talk about things and think about issues then doing when the topic is most relevant is kind of the point.
Also Jack I beleive you missing the point. The officers that were killed had an opportunity to get justice or have the opportunity to do so. Right or wrong a lot of people dont think everyone in this country gets that opportunity.
Also Jack I beleive you missing the point. The officers that were killed had an opportunity to get justice or have the opportunity to do so. Right or wrong a lot of people dont think everyone in this country gets that opportunity.
Both Michael Brown and Eric Garner had Grand Juries. Justice was in play. The system worked. It's just not the justice that the protesters had already pre-determined. "Hands up don't shoot" was a fairytale helped along by the media. The system may not be perfect but it's the best around. My son is a long time law enforcement officer. I take this nonsense shirt deal personally. My son attended and was part of the funeral procession for both NW Indiana officers. Perhaps Muffett, Jack S, and the girls should have attended. Maybe they would have thought this shirt deal out more clearly.
And when did "Religious rights" start to outweighs "Human Rights"? You have the right to worship whatever fairy tale you wish, as long as it doesn't infringe upon others rights...like legal discrimination. Gay people are ***gasp*** people... How about women? They take a back seat to men in the bible. As a matter of fact, men are allowed to sell their daughters into slavery according to the bible. Don't deny me my bible given right to sell my daughters into slavery just because you don't agree with my religion... This whole thing is utter BS. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion, respect, loving your neighbor etc... Not intolerance and discrimination. This whole issue makes Christians look like complete hypocrits and poor excuses for humans.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination end of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness - Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination end of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness - Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
The protest was Iver how the lawn is constructed. How is entering into a conversation over laws that are in play not a valid or even good thing? The shorts and the ND situation are imo pretty unrelated. Those shirts weren't and endorsement of killing officers. We can agree killing people is bad right?
Here's a good run down of the differences between the Indiana version and others. Seems like it might be some here who don't understand the facts.
And don't get me started on Obamacare.
Washington Post
And don't get me started on Obamacare.
Washington Post
I applaud this coach and Pat Hayden. I will not be spending money in Indiana until this law is changed.
Why? Because I live in the US of A and NOT IRAN where Religious Mullahs dictate the lives and freedoms of their people.
Because unlike these knuckleheads in Indiana I RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION! (Where have I heard that recently?)
Read the First Amendment.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Why? Because I live in the US of A and NOT IRAN where Religious Mullahs dictate the lives and freedoms of their people.
Because unlike these knuckleheads in Indiana I RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION! (Where have I heard that recently?)
Read the First Amendment.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
"They are leaving religious groups because they kneel at the altar of apple and lefty teachers."
Are you serious? Apple guides young people away from religion? Lefty teachers? These are preposterous statements.
"Most couldn't tell you when Abe Lincoln was president."
Since when were the years of Lincoln's presidency a religious issue?
Another deflection, as with the whole T-shirt discussion. Wearing the T-shirts was no more than calling attention to a matter of interest to these players. You disagree with their viewpoint, but their view and their expression of that view had Zero meaningful impact on your life, but still you consider their act sufficient to withhold support.
The Indiana law has the potential to impact thousands of lives in a meaningful way, and you disagree that other people should not express their views and withhold support. Conservative complain of losing freedoms, but it is the conservative side constantly telling us how we Have to behave and act.
What's next, I have to ask permission before I can express my views and opinions?
Are you serious? Apple guides young people away from religion? Lefty teachers? These are preposterous statements.
"Most couldn't tell you when Abe Lincoln was president."
Since when were the years of Lincoln's presidency a religious issue?
Another deflection, as with the whole T-shirt discussion. Wearing the T-shirts was no more than calling attention to a matter of interest to these players. You disagree with their viewpoint, but their view and their expression of that view had Zero meaningful impact on your life, but still you consider their act sufficient to withhold support.
The Indiana law has the potential to impact thousands of lives in a meaningful way, and you disagree that other people should not express their views and withhold support. Conservative complain of losing freedoms, but it is the conservative side constantly telling us how we Have to behave and act.
What's next, I have to ask permission before I can express my views and opinions?
"Police Lives Matter". "Hollywood and Big Business Are Moral Frauds". I like the sound of that. Maybe I will get my own shirts made.
Irish Jack, it is sad that you have so much anger and hostility against the the LGBT community (not to mention just about every other individual and group that doesn't agree with you). Is the LGBT community vocal and political powerful? Absolutely. Of course, I'm not part of the LGBT community but I fully support them. They should have the same rights as heterosexuals and non-sexuals.
I don't know of anyone that is saying that police lives don't matter. Anytime a policeman is shot, it is a tragedy. Anytime a policeman shoots a civilian, it is a tragedy. Often, if not most, times it is the civilian's fault if he get's shot but sometimes it is the cop's fault. While the vast majority of cops are good people, there will always be (and have always been) bad cops out there. The situation in Ferguson, MO is an example of almost an entire police force that is bad.
As far as Hollywood being moral frauds, I'm curious what your support is for that statement. It is a broad generalization and many of the Hollywood stars are rich and immoral but certainly not all of them. Take a look at George Clooney or Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts. In what way are they moral frauds?
Being angry at everyone that doesn't agree with you is a miserable way to go through life. There is a lot of shit in this life but also a lot of good. I prefer to focus on the good and try and tolerate the shit. You might want to give this a try.
I don't know of anyone that is saying that police lives don't matter. Anytime a policeman is shot, it is a tragedy. Anytime a policeman shoots a civilian, it is a tragedy. Often, if not most, times it is the civilian's fault if he get's shot but sometimes it is the cop's fault. While the vast majority of cops are good people, there will always be (and have always been) bad cops out there. The situation in Ferguson, MO is an example of almost an entire police force that is bad.
As far as Hollywood being moral frauds, I'm curious what your support is for that statement. It is a broad generalization and many of the Hollywood stars are rich and immoral but certainly not all of them. Take a look at George Clooney or Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts. In what way are they moral frauds?
Being angry at everyone that doesn't agree with you is a miserable way to go through life. There is a lot of shit in this life but also a lot of good. I prefer to focus on the good and try and tolerate the shit. You might want to give this a try.
Save the lecture and finger pointing . The gay community are in your face activists who just as soon shut down a mom and pop bakery rather than go to the million other bakeries who would be happy to take their money. It must be a proud moment with lots of back slapping when the small town pizza joint in Indiana was forced to close under threat when they went public on the stance of gay marriage. There is zero tolerance from the gay movement when it comes to Christians and their traditional marriage belief. Don't point the blame arrow at me. It won't work. The whole Ferguson police force is bad? Do you live there? Do you know anyone who lives there or are you relying on the special report from our AG? As there are a few bad cops there are also many more who are bad citizens that officers have to deal with. Try it some time. Work the streets of Gary, Indiana and report back. Apple Products have condemned Indiana but make millions upon millions in the Middle East and Indonesia where being gay can get you jailed or executed. Not a peep from Apple about that. That is the very definition of being a moral fraud. Here's the deal. You be tolerant of me and my Christian beliefs and I will be tolerant of you. Somehow though, the gay community defines tolerance to be a one way street. This is what people like you do. You say I have hostility and anger just for expressing passionately my belief system. You demean and label it with a negativity. The real deal is YOU want everyone to fall in line and goose step to your side. If not, it's branded and labeled. That's the kind of animosity that has grown towards Christians and Conservatives over the last six years. Listen to the protesting crowd in NY and Ferguson and tell me with a straight face that those people wanted to give law enforcement and hug and a kiss. This is too funny.
Voted against Gay marriage when it was on the ballot in Calif, and wanted a civil union alternative instead. Finally came to the realization that I didn't want my sense of marriage to be tainted by same sex marriage, and decided that was a poor reason on my part. I don't want to be around outward gay expression of affection, as I find it largely repugnant, and perhaps this attitude will soften as Hollywood exposes us more and more to gay relationship themes. I do feel as though the Gay movement is being shoved down our throats by academia and Hollywood and the liberal left; but I also feel strongly that it is morally wrong and contrary to what this country stands for to discriminate against Gays, or any law abiding group. They are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, and they are entitled to receive services that are available to the rest of us. I get the religious objection and desire not to be forced to support the Gay lifestyle, but I don't see a practical way to allow this without resulting discrimination if that translates to withholding services that are otherwise available to the public at large.
There was no problem when Bill Clinton signed off on this exact same piece of legislature while Governor of Arkansas over two decades ago. Suddenly, there is an issue when a Republican Governor does the same thing.
I was talking to some friends at work yesterday about this thread and the big debate going on between several of us posters and one of them brought up a very good point when he started talking about how basically everybody gets discriminated against some how or way like john or cindy smith that's age 45 being turned down for a good paying factory job over some other guy or girl because he or she are only 25. in talking about this my friend's point basically was that people like talk show host ellen and her other high power gay and lesbian celebs and supporters probably don't give a crap about the average some john or cindy smith being discriminated against job wise or for other reasons but if he or she are gay or lesbian they then will throw a huge stink about it through the media
This post was edited on 4/4 11:48 AM by coolirish9
This post was edited on 4/4 11:48 AM by coolirish9
Let me bring some sanity back to this conversation as many of you are responding out of emotion rather than logic.
Let's look at the Pizzaria in Walkerton, Indiana that said they would in fact gladly serve gay patrons in their store, but they would not cater to a gay wedding. They are a Christian couple with specific beliefs. Among those beliefs is that men and women, not men and men or women and women, are the Biblically correct lifelong partnerships. A gay wedding would be a celebration of something they see as totally against their faith. In a country where they are allowed to practice religious freedom as they choose, they should not be required to participate, in any way, in a celebration that is clearly against the concepts of their faith. An individuals religious freedom should not be curtailed simply because they are business owners.
Should they be allowed to keep people out of their store simply because they are gay? No, and they are not trying to do that. There is no "celebration" of a lifestyle seen as sinful by the business owners in a gay couple coming into their store and having a pizza. The behavior is not an affront to their faith.
I expect some will respond to this post with more anger. I won't reply. A couple of preemptive notes, however. First, you can quote the Old Testament as much as you want. The fact is, Christ Jesus is the new covenant. Christians are Christ followers, and it is his words and actions from which our faith as Christians is founded.
Second, those of you who want to pretended that this is Christians against gays are only fooling yourselves (although I think you know that is nonsense.) Christians are more loving to the gay community than any other faith (That doesn't take much considering what happens to gays in countries dominated by Muslims and other religions.) And, it should be that way. Christ taught us to love all people, and he also taught us to distain our sins and sin in general.
To put this in perspective, if a gay couple walked into the evangelical church I attend, they would be loved as all are and they would hear Christ's message of love, forgiveness, and the pursuit of righteousness. There would be no withholding of love and forgiveness, and there would be no soft-stepping around the way Christ teaches us to live. That means that a request by that couple to have an anniversary party or reaffirm their vows in our church would be denied and the reasons would be clearly explained from the perspective of Christ's teachings. The pizza shop owners in Walkerton may have been thinking along these same lines, as they are glad to serve a gay couple pizza in the restaurant, but they are unwilling to participate in a celebration of that couple's lifestyle.
Let's look at the Pizzaria in Walkerton, Indiana that said they would in fact gladly serve gay patrons in their store, but they would not cater to a gay wedding. They are a Christian couple with specific beliefs. Among those beliefs is that men and women, not men and men or women and women, are the Biblically correct lifelong partnerships. A gay wedding would be a celebration of something they see as totally against their faith. In a country where they are allowed to practice religious freedom as they choose, they should not be required to participate, in any way, in a celebration that is clearly against the concepts of their faith. An individuals religious freedom should not be curtailed simply because they are business owners.
Should they be allowed to keep people out of their store simply because they are gay? No, and they are not trying to do that. There is no "celebration" of a lifestyle seen as sinful by the business owners in a gay couple coming into their store and having a pizza. The behavior is not an affront to their faith.
I expect some will respond to this post with more anger. I won't reply. A couple of preemptive notes, however. First, you can quote the Old Testament as much as you want. The fact is, Christ Jesus is the new covenant. Christians are Christ followers, and it is his words and actions from which our faith as Christians is founded.
Second, those of you who want to pretended that this is Christians against gays are only fooling yourselves (although I think you know that is nonsense.) Christians are more loving to the gay community than any other faith (That doesn't take much considering what happens to gays in countries dominated by Muslims and other religions.) And, it should be that way. Christ taught us to love all people, and he also taught us to distain our sins and sin in general.
To put this in perspective, if a gay couple walked into the evangelical church I attend, they would be loved as all are and they would hear Christ's message of love, forgiveness, and the pursuit of righteousness. There would be no withholding of love and forgiveness, and there would be no soft-stepping around the way Christ teaches us to live. That means that a request by that couple to have an anniversary party or reaffirm their vows in our church would be denied and the reasons would be clearly explained from the perspective of Christ's teachings. The pizza shop owners in Walkerton may have been thinking along these same lines, as they are glad to serve a gay couple pizza in the restaurant, but they are unwilling to participate in a celebration of that couple's lifestyle.
The pizza place has shut down and the owners are in hiding due to threats from the anti-religion left. A recent fundraiser was held and over 800k was collected to benefit the owners. They will reopen bigger and better than ever. Though I live a few hours away, I will be one of their customers and biggest supporter. This whole ordeal probably has roots in the state's ban on gay marriage and the will of the people. As usual, the will of the people doesn't count and some slimy lawyers took the law to court on behalf of a few lesbian couples. An activist judge over ruled the will of the people from the great state of Indiana. The hard feelings festered that it took an activist court to make this sham legal with little support from the people. Now, this brings us up to date and why Indiana is the state with a target on its back when nineteen other states have the same basic law. As usual, the cowardice shown by Republicans in this state and nationally is mind boggling. On a side note, John Mellencamp and Wilco both have stated their dissatisfaction with the new law. Wilco has cancelled concerts in Indiana and Mellencamp is debating it. Moral frauds. Their cancelling will only hurt the little guy vendors and I am sure they have not cancelled shows in the other nineteen states that have similar laws. Watching the left on this issue is even more hilarious than listening to them blather on and on about "hands up don't shoot" as if it really happened.
