Previous 11 - 20 Next
How many times did we hear during the Bush 43 administration that he should be tortured, killed, considered the lowest form of life, etc. by "progressives"? Didn't they say that Christians should have no voice, that they are knuckle-dragging neanderthal who need to be "enlightened" or die, or that they weren't fit to be parents? Didn't they say that California's Prop 8 was an affront to the Constitution because it promoted a "religious" viewpoint, but who think that the Davis-Bacon Act is an inviolable right, even though its authors and supported expressed blatantly racist reasons for the law when it was passed? When do Progressives have to start playing by their own rules? Isn't that what Saint Alinsky taught us?
Evolutionists tell us that social and cultural institutions "evolved" in order to promote the success of our species and its continued existence. Those institutions included religion, cultural norms, sexual taboos, manners, and other behaviors that support restraint of our "animal nature". If that is the case and many of our mores have continued with some variation for thousands of years, then what should we say bout those who seek to remove these social institutions and behavior norms? Aren't they logically committing an anti-evolutionary act? Aren't they reducing the ability of our species to survive - or to evolve higher? Aren't they supporting devolutionary behavior? Who's right? Social "progressives" or evolutionists?
In response to:

Why Another Terroristan?

SterCrazy Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 11:21 PM
Ditto. Where in the Constitutions the authority to tax citizens to give to the governments of other nations?
In response to:

Needed: A New Foreign Policy

SterCrazy Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 9:42 AM
Cont. . . Would conquering Iran with an army be more effective than a popular, pro-western revolution that ousts its current leadership and reinstates a more modern-thinking state? I fear a policy of constant war and "shows of force" to project American policy when more subtle and supportive actions may accomplish more without the expectation of "blow-back". Imperialist actions, no matter what we call them, are seen for what they are and incite opposition by some who might otherwise welcome our encouragement. President Washington warned us to be friends to all just to keep us out of worldwide conflicts. It is not in our best interest - or the legitimate power of our government - to involve itself directly into the affairs of others
In response to:

Needed: A New Foreign Policy

SterCrazy Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 9:34 AM
We conquered Germany, Japan and Italy into submission - we beat them decidedly. That has not been American policy since WWII. It definitely has not been our policy since 9/11, particularly regarding Iran. Being strong and supporting freedom does not mean that we need to commit US troops to overseas action. President Reagan proved that with his support of the Poles and Contras and direct verbal confrontations with the USSR. The Bush administration made a significant strategic mistake by not supporting popular uprisings in Iran against the mullahs. The only effective strategy for changing a nation is to change its leadership through the will of its people. Our foreign policy since WWII has concentrated primarily on top-down change.
In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 2:27 PM
So how does the Jesus who made "a whip of cords" and drove the money changers from the temple, calling them a "den of thieves", or who called the religious authorities "white washed tombs, who look clean on the outside but are inside full of dead men's bones" fit into your view of what "Christians" should look like? There are times for gentle speech to sinners and there are times for strong words to sinners. Jesus exhibited both. So do good Christians.
In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 2:21 PM
In this country, every person had the right to use THEIR property as they wish - regardless of whether the courts agree. It is inherent in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments. It is not the people who must submit themselves to laws that violate their inherent rights, but lawmakers who must submit to the rights held by the people. You don't think the KKK has a right to open a whites-only hotel. Does someone else have a right to open then a female-only establishment or a blacks-only institution? If some can discriminate, then on what logical basis can you exclude ANY from discriminating? You don't have top agree with them or use their property. You are free. But are THEY free when government can force them into associations?
In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:30 AM
Who are you to decide if it harms the Hotel owners or not? You have decided that their discrimination "harms" others in some way. Some people are angered to know that someone disapproves of what they do. My 2-year old grandson is like that. we are not free from disapproval. You have judged this couple and disapprove of them? Shouldn't they receive the same benefit that those they "discriminate" against, and be permitted to live their lives the way they want without someone else forcing their disapproval on them? Are you incapable of seeing the logical fallacy you are operating under and why freedom here protects the rights of ALL people? Or are you only so privileged that YOUR views receive approval?
In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:23 AM
But under their religious beliefs it might be used to save your life and those of all of the passengers. If rationality ruled our security program Sikhs would not be considered a threat and Muslims and people - particularly young men and women - from (predominantly) Muslim states would receive special scrutiny when traveling. It is the special "accommodation" of Islam that leads a country to deny the religious rights of others.
In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:17 AM
continued . . . property. If you do not agree with "my" position that I will uphold my Christin beliefs and not rent a room to an unmarried couple or homosexual couple, do you not violate your own conscience by wanting associate with me? Isn't your action - forcing me to rent to you - an act of aggression by you against my beliefs, conscience, and property rights? If I am a "bigot", do I not just harm myself and my potential income if I discriminate against you for whatever reason? You have other options, so you are not harmed. When the government forces me to violate my conscience, then I have no other options except to leave the country. Ask the Puritans about that. You might have heard about them in school. Freedom is not Force
In response to:

Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

SterCrazy Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:11 AM
So your solution is to FORCE these "bigots" to associate with people they don't want to? On which end of this transaction is FORCE applied? 1. The person who insists that they have a "right" to be accommodated by someone who does not want that associations, or 2. The person who exercises their "right" not to associate or accommodate someone with whom they have disagreements? Freedom means that I am free from coercive acts by government to force me to do something against my will, when my will does not involve coercion of someone else. I.e. - I am free ONLY if I am able to act on my own beliefs and conscience, using my property as I desire, as long as I do not force someone else to violate their conscience or infringe on their (cont.)
Previous 11 - 20 Next