Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Married to Darwin

ca7 Wrote: Jul 08, 2014 5:56 PM
"If Genesis isn't accurate, even as metaphor, then there is no need for Jesus/a savior/God's forgiveness/reconnection with God." This just means that Joycey's desire for a savior drives her belief in the Genesis story. It says a lot about Joycey and nothing about the accuracy of the Genesis story. Her belief in the Genesis story is not intellectual or scientific; it is simply emotional.
In response to:

Married to Darwin

ca7 Wrote: Jul 08, 2014 1:58 PM
"We might think chapter 2 of Genesis teaches that “God formed the man of dust from the ground,” and Eve from Adam—but if they were the product of evolution, than early Genesis becomes a myth, and everyone who assumed the history to be true (including Jesus and Paul) were naive." Greek and Roman mythology were once considered to be religions and not mythology too. You can believe your bible stories to be literally true but that doesn't mean it isn't really mythology. "and everyone who assumed the history to be true (including Jesus and Paul) were naive" I don't think that everyone who assumed the history to be true was naive. You are naive if you continue believing that stuff despite scientific advancements, however.
In response to:

Target Joins the Anti-Gun Movement

ca7 Wrote: Jul 03, 2014 2:55 PM
"But, Target is a business… And those who run it have every right in the world to make stupid, ill-informed, or even unfair decisions. Heck, they’re even allowed to make wrong decisions." Ok, I can see how you can think this is stupid , ill-informed, or wrong but how is it unfair? If they are well within their rights as a corporation to make this policy, how is it unfair? If we're all supposed to respect an individual's right to decide for themselves if they should own or carry a gun, shouldn't you also respect the rights of businesses to not allow it in their stores? You can choose to shop there or not, but there is nothing unfair about their decision.
Actually, according to this poll, a majority of Americans don't want immigration to decrease. 55% want immigration to either stay the same or increase whereas 41% want immigration to decrease.
In response to:

Playing a Name Game with the Redskins

ca7 Wrote: Jun 25, 2014 1:42 PM
"I have searched in vain for any evidence that the right to not be offended is anywhere in our national heritage." Did you find evidence of a right to have a name trademarked? "I did find the right to free speech" Of course, the owner is free to keep the name of his team, it just doesn't have trademark protection.
In response to:

Playing a Name Game with the Redskins

ca7 Wrote: Jun 25, 2014 1:38 PM
This doesn't affect the ability of those teams to call themselves whatever they want, offensive or not. The government is in no way forcing the redskins to change their name. It only affects the ability of those teams to have their names trademarked.
"I believe it's just about time for John Kerry to review his job description." One can certainly rightly argue that there are other more important priorities for Kerry today (and I assume he is not just focused on this conference), but this is actually in the job description that the author links. A few bullet points after what this writer provides you find this: "Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies" Simply put, this is also part of his job.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet.
Skull wrote: " "The courts have been stuffed with liberal judges who "interpret" the law."" This judge was recommended by 2 Republican Senators and nominated by a Republican President.
You are absolutely free to refuse to obey a law you think is evil and immoral. If you are surprised when there are legal consequences to that, you are an idiot. I did not say every law is by definition right. I disagree with current laws in many respects. I have long disagreed with laws that prohibit same sex marriages. As a result, I work to change those but until they are changed (or, rather, were changed in my state) I could not actually get married. Do you think someone that thinks everything related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is immoral (and there are those people out there) should actually be able to get away with discriminating against black people or Jews or Christians or Italians just because they disagree with the law?
"It is not we heterosexuals who are marching in the streets and forcing business to accommodate OUR bedroom behavior, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)!" I'm going to venture to say you and your husband or wife have never been turned away from getting a hotel room because of your orientation. My partner and I of 12 years have been turned away from a hotel (late at night too) in a state where it is still perfectly legal to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. We had to drive another 100 miles to the next urban area late at night after driving all day. It kind of sucked and wasn't safe on the road either since we were already tired. Do you approve of that? How about a gas station in a rural area refusing to sell gas to a gay couple when there are no other gas stations for 100 miles. While this hasn't happened to me, it would have been perfectly legal for the one gas station during a recent 100 mile drive between two national parks in Utah to deny us service. See, you think this is all about forcing businesses to accommodate our "bedroom behavior" but it is really about us just being able to live our lives without being discriminated against.
Previous 11 - 20 Next