quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
if I am reading this rightly, you are somehow suggesting jesus was pro-homosexual?

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

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.

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

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/

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?

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.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

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.

(in reply to thompsonx)

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.

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?

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

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'.

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?