RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone

RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 6:57:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 if I am reading this rightly, you are somehow suggesting jesus was pro-homosexual? I would have thought that would come under the general heading of 'Jesus loved people, on account of his father made all of them'.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 6:58:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 found this when I was looking for something else, and its appropriate here: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson More about mr jefferson. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/#gILEFtDqX0LBlWG5.99

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 8:24:52 AM)
if I am reading this rightly, you are somehow suggesting jesus was pro-homosexual? This would seem to indicate so. Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2: "One day a Roman Centurion asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male slave to be their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen into loving partnerships....Jesus offered to go to the servant, but the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a 'gay relationship,' we see him simply concerned about -- and deeply moved by -- their faith and love."

tweakabelle -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 8:35:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge You know what I find amusing as hell? When Jesus walked this planet, he befriended the shunned, the sinful and the wicked. The only folks he really ever got truly angry with were religious folks. Let that sink in a moment before your next post. Yes. It we accept the Biblical account of Jesus's life as true, then it would follow from his words and actions that the very last people he would be judging and marginalising are the minority groups that those on the Religious Right take so much pleasure in lambasting and marginalising. To put that another way, Jesus would be pro-equality for everyone and very much against the kind of vitriolic hate the Religious Right throws at whatever minority group is their object of hate de jour. I seem to remember some wise words about those without sin casting the first stone ........ Sadly the fact that the Religious Right is trashing its own religion in promoting hate hasn't stopped them in the past nor is it likely to do so today. But it does mean that whatever their real motivation is, it isn't a religious one.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:02:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 found this when I was looking for something else, and its appropriate here: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson More about mr jefferson. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/#gILEFtDqX0LBlWG5.99 And your point is...what? That because Jefferson had slaves, his words regarding any matter are not to be taken seriously? Considering most of the founding fathers owned slaves...or had at one time...then perhaps none of their words or actions should be taken seriously. Hell, let's just give the country back to the English. Oh wait...they took it over from the Native Americans...And on...And on. If you're going to argue the point with Bounty, why not argue the point of the words, instead of bringing in something unrelated to what he said?

Sanity -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:06:22 AM)
FR quote: Leading Conservatives Call on Apple to Pull Out of Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran Until They Stop Torturing Their Gay Citizens Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook said, “Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination. …This is about how we treat each other as human beings… Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.” Tim Cook’s message seems rather ironic in light of the fact that Apple willingly does business with some of the most virulently anti-gay nations on the planet. According to their Islamic-based governments, homosexuality is punishable by death in Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran. So not only is it willing to “tolerate discrimination” in those countries, Apple is also happy to sell an iPod to the people who are murdering gays so they can listen to some cheery music when they’re done. What these nations are doing to their gay communities is despicable and should be condemned by every decent person. We hope Tim Cook believes that as well... http://rightwingnews.com/special/leading-conservatives-call-on-apple-to-pull-out-of-nigeria-qatar-saudi-arabia-and-iran-until-they-stop-torturing-their-gay-citizens/

Sanity -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:09:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 found this when I was looking for something else, and its appropriate here: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson More about mr jefferson. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/#gILEFtDqX0LBlWG5.99 And your point is...what? That because Jefferson had slaves, his words regarding any matter are not to be taken seriously? Considering most of the founding fathers owned slaves...or had at one time...then perhaps none of their words or actions should be taken seriously. He'll, let's just give the country back to the English. Oh wait...they took it over from the Native Americans...And on...And on. If you're going to argue the point with Bounty, why not argue the point of the words, instead of bringing in something unrelated to what he said? The point is, we cant quote anybody, because everybody did something wrong once (To quote someone who used to post here, "Some people are just idiots.")

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:17:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 found this when I was looking for something else, and its appropriate here: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson More about mr jefferson. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/#gILEFtDqX0LBlWG5.99 And your point is...what? My point is that none of us are "saints" and to cite someone only for their supposed virtue is disingenuous. That because Jefferson had slaves, his words regarding any matter are not to be taken seriously? On the contrary I believe all of his words need to be taken seriously. Especially when he speaks out of both side of his mouth. Considering most of the founding fathers owned slaves...or had at one time... Many of the founders did in fact own slaves and their writtings about freedom justice and equality seem more than a little disingenuous in light of that fact. then perhaps none of their words or actions should be taken seriously. No...once again all of their words and actions need to be taken seriously. Consider john adams and how his ownership of a slave was dealt with. Compare and contrast adams with jefferson and washington slave ownership. He'll, let's just give the country back to the English. I have not called for that so why suggest it? If you're going to argue the point with Bounty, why not argue the point of the words, instead of bringing in something unrelated to what he said? What was posted amounts to nothing more than hagiography...my post adds a bit of historical context to the "so called" egalitarianism of mr jefferson the rapist,slaver.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:18:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If the distinction is not as I have noted how else do we explane the two different definitions for what would otherwise appears to be the same thing? The explanation is that the 1993 RFRA was changed. Section 7 of the Land Use act amended the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to conform the former's definition of religious exercise to the latter. Section 7. Section 7 amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act . . . Section 7(a)(3) clarifies the definition of ‘‘religious exercise," http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt13/pdf/CRECB-2000-pt13-Pg19124.pdf In the final version of the act, Section 7 was simplified and the definition is at (7)(A) as quoted previously. K.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:42:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 found this when I was looking for something else, and its appropriate here: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson More about mr jefferson. As Jefferson was counting up the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in a letter to President Washington that year, it occurred to him that there was a phenomenon he had perceived at Monticello but never actually measured. He proceeded to calculate it in a barely legible, scribbled note in the middle of a page, enclosed in brackets. What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/#gILEFtDqX0LBlWG5.99 And your point is...what? My point is that none of us are "saints" and to cite someone only for their supposed virtue is disingenuous. That because Jefferson had slaves, his words regarding any matter are not to be taken seriously? On the contrary I believe all of his words need to be taken seriously. Especially when he speaks out of both side of his mouth. Considering most of the founding fathers owned slaves...or had at one time... Many of the founders did in fact own slaves and their writtings about freedom justice and equality seem more than a little disingenuous in light of that fact. then perhaps none of their words or actions should be taken seriously. No...once again all of their words and actions need to be taken seriously. Consider john adams and how his ownership of a slave was dealt with. Compare and contrast adams with jefferson and washington slave ownership. He'll, let's just give the country back to the English. I have not called for that so why suggest it? If you're going to argue the point with Bounty, why not argue the point of the words, instead of bringing in something unrelated to what he said? What was posted amounts to nothing more than hagiography...my post adds a bit of historical context to the "so called" egalitarianism of mr jefferson the rapist,slaver. And if Bounty had been giving a lecture on Jefferson that only contained his good points, I'd agree. But he wasn't...he brought in something that Jefferson said that was relevant to the topic. Whereas, your 'reminder' of Jefferson's slave ownership was not relevant to the topic...in fact, you are being disingenuous when you state that you're just adding historical context.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:45:02 AM)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt13/pdf/CRECB-2000-pt13-Pg19124.pdf This is dated 2000. Would this not indicate that the original bill as signed used the first definition of what the exercise of religion meant and continued to do so until it was ammended in 2000? (3) Free Exercise Clause The term ‘‘Free Exercise Clause’’ means that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:48:41 AM)
The point is, we cant quote anybody, because everybody did something wrong once No one has suggested that you may not quote anyone?

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 9:55:07 AM)
And if Bounty had been giving a lecture on Jefferson that only contained his good points, I'd agree. But he wasn't...he brought in something that Jefferson said that was relevant to the topic. Whereas, your 'reminder' of Jefferson's slave ownership was not relevant to the topic...in fact, you are being disingenuous when you state that you're just adding historical context. I am sorry you missed the point of my comment. It was not that jefferson was a slave holder but that he was commenting on how proftable it was to rape your slaves. The quote I responded to was one in which jefferson speaks of morality. I simply pointed out that his morality was in his wallet.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 10:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx And if Bounty had been giving a lecture on Jefferson that only contained his good points, I'd agree. But he wasn't...he brought in something that Jefferson said that was relevant to the topic. Whereas, your 'reminder' of Jefferson's slave ownership was not relevant to the topic...in fact, you are being disingenuous when you state that you're just adding historical context. I am sorry you missed the point of my comment. It was not that jefferson was a slave holder but that he was commenting on how proftable it was to rape your slaves. The quote I responded to was one in which jefferson speaks of morality. I simply pointed out that his morality was in his wallet. In your opinion. It continually amazes me how many people want to try and impose the struggles and triumphs of society and science and thought onto people living 250 years ago and find them wanting.

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 10:32:18 AM)
FR For peon, who called this first. [:)] [image]local://upfiles/312801/17E52A09ABCA43B2B292B2F69998D149.jpg[/image]

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 10:37:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I am sorry you missed the point of my comment. It was not that jefferson was a slave holder but that he was commenting on how proftable it was to rape your slaves. The quote I responded to was one in which jefferson speaks of morality. I simply pointed out that his morality was in his wallet. In your opinion. Not my opinion but a matter of public record. It continually amazes me how many people want to try and impose the struggles and triumphs of society and science and thought onto people living 250 years ago and find them wanting. Do you not find it disingenuous to speak about the equality of mankind while raping and enslaving mankind?

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 10:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx This is dated 2000. Would this not indicate that the original bill as signed used the first definition of what the exercise of religion meant and continued to do so until it was ammended in 2000? That is the definition that has informed federal law for the past 15 years. And at the expense of repeating myself, all of the RFRA statutes are materially identical with or without that particular definition, because they all create special protections for religiously motivated conduct whenever and wherever it conflicts with duly enacted and otherwise unassailable civil laws, which raises both an Establishment Clause issue, because it prioritizes religion over non-religion, and a separation of powers issue, because the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, not Congress. The rest is detail. The amended definition of "religious expression" was also included in Mississippi's RFRA, to much resounding silence, and none of the cases raised under RFRA laws have turned on that definition. But don't worry, we'll get there. K.

Aylee -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 10:58:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 if I am reading this rightly, you are somehow suggesting jesus was pro-homosexual? I would have thought that would come under the general heading of 'Jesus loved people, on account of his father made all of them'. I would say that he was not "pro-homosexual" because the whole heterosexual/homosexual thing is a rather recent phenomenon. It just was not a Roman thing.

mnottertail -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 11:07:56 AM)
Uh............yeah, don't know about that. Fore example, one of the perks of being a Senator in those days was having anywhere, anytime, anyplace, FELLATORS and FELLATRIXES at your beck and call. They didnt have a homosexuality and hetrosexuality word, or concept, it was male and female. And although female homosexuality was less written about, there was no stigma to male male encounters. They had as many names for their boibitches as men have nowadays for womens teats. A man or boy who took the "receptive" role in sex was variously called cinaedus, pathicus, exoletus, concubinus (male concubine), spintria ("analist"), puer ("boy"), pullus ("chick"), pusio, delicatus (especially in the phrase puer delicatus, "exquisite" or "dainty boy"), mollis ("soft," used more generally as an aesthetic quality counter to aggressive masculinity), tener ("delicate"), debilis ("weak" or "disabled"), effeminatus, discinctus ("loose-belted"), and morbosus ("sick"). Where you really wanted eyes in the back of your anus was Greece. Incidentally, it is unclear whether or not the Roman Legions took guns into their churches. they werent big on Jeebus being their savior either. So..................when in Rome....

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 11:17:41 AM)
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx This is dated 2000. Would this not indicate that the original bill as signed used the first definition of what the exercise of religion meant and continued to do so until it was ammended in 2000? That is the definition that has informed federal law for the past 15 years. And at the expense of repeating myself, all of the RFRA statutes are materially identical with or without that particular definition, because they all create special protections for religiously motivated conduct, but only religiously motivated conduct, whenever and wherever it conflicts with duly enacted and otherwise unassailable civil laws, which raises both an Establishment Clause issue, because it prioritizes religion over non-religion, and a separation of powers issue, I hope you do not mind my bolding but that is as clear as it gets. because the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, not Congress. Funny how the constitution does not mention that as the job of the s.c. and yet they do. The rest is detail. The amended definition of "religious expression" was also included in Mississippi's RFRA, to much resounding silence, and none of the cases raised under RFRA laws have turned on that definition. But don't worry, we'll get there. My original issue was that the 1993 law was significantly different than the indiana law. The 97 restriction on where it applied and the 2000 law changing the designation of religious practice do nothing to challange my original position in this matter. What has been discovered is that the 2000 land use law has not beifited the religious pimps very much. As a result, the laws that the religious have managed to get enacted have thus far, not helped them out very much. http://rfraperils.com/about/ The amended definition of "religious expression" was also included in Mississippi's RFRA, to much resounding silence, I have lived in m i crooked letter crooked letter i crooked letter crooked letter i humpback humpback i, so the resounding silence does not surprise me. and none of the cases raised under RFRA laws have turned on that definition. But don't worry, we'll get there. I do believe your crystal ball has pretty good reception.

Page: << < prev 40 41 [42] 43 44 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625