Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Texas Shows the Way on Abortion

Matthew492 Wrote: Aug 04, 2014 3:16 PM
Should we also have come to a "reasonable and fair compromise" on slavery? Some things (i.e. killing innocent children or enslaving innocent people) should not be compromised on.
In response to:

Marriage Is a Religious Liberty Issue

Matthew492 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 2:05 PM
The attack on traditional marriage began long before the gay marriage debate. Many years ago states began loosening up divorce laws and implementing no-fault divorces. The result was an explosion in the divorce rate, and generations of children raised in broken homes. At the same time, many churches stopped condemning sin. It is unfortunate but true that promiscuity is not viewed as a serious problem by many Christians. For the last 50 years, marriage has been weakened, families broken, and basic morality ignored. Only after gay marriage began to advance did many begin to worry about the state of marriage and the family in America. I do think that the concept of homosexual marriage is not good for society. However, I fear too many, especially in the churches, have sat by for too long as marriage was routinely assaulted by everybody but the gays.
In response to:

The Hobbled Hobby Lobby Decision

Matthew492 Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 12:14 PM
I get the point of this article, and largely agree, but this decision needs to be understood in the context of how courts usually make decisions. The Supreme Court has stated several times that if there is a way to come to the right decision without needing to declare a law unconstitutional, then that approach is favored. The idea is that using judicial review to declare a law enacted by the people as unconstitutional is a major power that should be used sparingly. Now, the Court is not always consistent in this approach, but it is supposed to be the goal. In this case there was an easy way to stop a wrong result by relying on a federal statute, rather than the need to declare the law unconstitutional. Another standard practice of interpretation is to base a decision on the simplest definitive issue. In this case, it may be difficult to prove the subjective beliefs of a party, and it is a trickier question to argue about when the government has a compelling interest to force somebody to do something. But it was a relatively straight forward issue as to whether there is a less restrictive means to accomplish the goals of the government. So this case was decided primarily on that issue, with the court simply assuming that the government could have proven that it had a compelling government interest. In a different case, following courts will not be bound by that dicta, or even necessarily the methods used to determine this case. So if another case arises in which the Religious Freedom Act does not provide the right outcome, but there is still an issue of 1st Amendment protection, that case will probably need to be resolved on the constitutional question.
In response to:

Who Won't Wear The Cord?

Matthew492 Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 1:15 PM
When you force a photographer to go to a gay wedding and take pictures, or when you force a baker to bake a cake specifically for the purpose of celebrating a gay wedding, you are saying you MUST approve. I predicted this would happen 15 years ago and people laughed at the idea. Now it's happening and I am predicting that it will not be long before churches are forced to perform gay marriages or lose their nonprofit status. And people laugh...
In response to:

Bowe Bergdahl, Just Deserts

Matthew492 Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 2:36 PM
Wrong. You are AWOL as soon as you are away from your assigned duty without authorization. Being AWOL 30 days or more simply increases the maximum punishment allowed under Article 86. However, Desertion, Article 85, has no nothing to do with time. You commit the offense of desertion as soon as you leave your unit with the intent to remain away permanently, or leave with the intent to avoid hazardous duty or important service. Time of absence has nothing to do with it. As for your other comments, there is a crime of attempting to commit missing movement or attempting desertion. Article 80 covers attempts. But that is inapplicable here because if the reports are true, he clearly deserted.
sorry, should say "threw a hissy fit."
Evidently Ransom is a progressive. I do not understand conservatives who claim to be in favor of small government, and believe in a system of checks and balances, but then want to get rid of all defense attorneys. Who do you think will stand up for you when the IRS decides to come after you, when the EPA is shutting down your businesses, and when out of control prosecutors go off on their witch hunts? Sure there are some attorneys who give others a bad name, but look at what was happening here. The judge through a hissy fit because the lawyer would not waive the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. The judge is a bully and has no business being on the bench. If Ransom had his way I guess he would rather the government have no opposition.
This thought-police attitude is pervasive on the left. My wife's uncle wanted to teach family counseling at the university level. Despite being immensely qualified, he was rejected by several schools because his religious views "wouldn't be a good fit" on the faculty. Leftist educators isolate themselves by refusing employment or tenure to conservative professors, and then use the lack of diverse political views as evidence that theirs is the only proper way to think. They also control peer-reviewed publications and block opposing sides from being published. They then use the lack of published peer-reviewed articles as evidence that theirs is the only valid position.
Completely off-topic, but yes, he did know. Which is why He prophesied exactly that he would be resurrected.
In response to:

Millionaires Need Your Help!

Matthew492 Wrote: Apr 03, 2014 11:09 AM
We need to change the law so that employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens get deported with the aliens. That would dry up the market in a hurry.
In response to:

We Are Not ‘All God’s Children’

Matthew492 Wrote: Feb 10, 2014 10:57 AM
This viewpoint is why I would have a hard time being Christian if I was not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). I believe that God is referred to as our Father because He is literally the Father of our spirits. Furthermore, God loves all of his children and wants us all to be saved. I could never understand how a loving Heavenyl Father would want to create billions of people for the sole purpose of damning them all to hell and eternal torment. Yet, that is exactly what you must believe in order to believe that God creates people, puts them in places like Africa, Asia, or the middle east, with little to no chance of them hearing the Word, and thereby damning them without a chance. To me, it makes far more sense that we are judged based on the knowledge that we have, and that those who never had a chance to hear of Christ will be given that opportunity in the next life.
Previous 11 - 20 Next