Rooster7

Call me silly, but I interpret Ed's statement to mean the following: Penn & Teller's discontentment with the BSA provides the same shock value as stating that bin Laden has issues with the BSA. As to why that is, Ed does not say. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern Penn & Teller as ultra-liberals who like to assail conservative organizations (and like it or not, the BSA is pretty much considered to be such an organization). Osama bin Laden clearly hates all things American, including the BSA. While bin Ladens motives may be different than Penn & Tellers,

Can we learn something from the show? A question not worth answering, if there ever was one.

Since we are discussing Atlanta, perhaps kudzu would be a better analogy than fungus ;-)

No. The real absurdity is this guy's continual posting to this site. No. Actually, the biggest absurdity are those on this forum that continually defend his postings...as if by doing so they are reaching new heights in patriotism. Free speech is free speech. When its exercised, its value is in the substance of the thoughts expressed by those words. If those words ring hollow, then its just a clanging gongnotable, but very annoying.

Beavah, Did I say that? I didn't mean to. Perhaps not. Sometimes I oversimplify for my own benefit and understanding. But it is a Christian act to spare their God-given life, because so long as they have breath in them they may yet be Saved. Thats debatable even amongst Christian circles. However, since no man can see and/or understand fully another mans heart, its pointless to debate. I understand and agree with your contention. Still, there are other factors which one should consider such as, Gods warning that one should submit to governmental authorities and be prep

Beavah, Upon reading Longhaul's comments, I was tempted to join this fray. But I see you defend yourself very well. I do part ways with you on one point. I'm not convinced that the life of a child-molester/killer deserves the same sense of sanctity as the unborn or some other innocent life.

SR540Beaver, My opinions are my own. You made the accusation, so please provide the proof of abuse. Less hype, more facts please From the USA Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner discussing the civil liberties violations resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act: Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA PATRIOT Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's independent Inspector General, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

All I see is baseless ranting. While I agree that we need to guard our freedoms, I have yet to see one real life example (as requested) that comes close to the hysteria being presented here. Long Haul whether you intended it to be interpreted this way or not, your quote is meant for people of prejudice and/or insensitivity, who turn a blind eye to injustices and atrocities which do not affect them directly. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. If you meant for it to be interpreted properly likening me to the citizenry of NAZI Germany who supposed

So the government wants to monitor Google searches for red flags. What freedoms have Americans lost, and exactly how will our lives be affected? And, can anyone give me a specific real life example as to how they personally, have been affected by new laws (i.e. the Patriot Act) which supposedly restricts our freedom? Please refrain from, I had to stand in line for two hours at the airport or Im losing sleep at night because Im afraid the government will discover my taste for ladies shoes. How, in real terms, has our freedom and happiness been hindered by Big Brother. To me, this is all o

You must have been confident that they would be persuasive to others or you wouldn't have told us about them. So why not confidently use them in exactly that manner to provide that broad persuasive power? Convince individuals BEFORE they decide. You have the opportunity to do this without further legislation, why not do it? Because the world is filled with people who would rather serve themselves unashamedly and without regard to others, than do the right thing. This is why we have laws. If I could show a bunch of rapists, pictures of folks whose lives theyve destroyed, I doubt seriousl

...if we are so confident that those images will compel anyone's decision, then there is no further need of legislation is there? We are agreed. Provide our images and let individuals make their own private decisions. We do not agree. Using that logic...we should show videos and pictures of abused children to parents so they can decide whether or not its appropriate to beat their kids with a bat? It's insane. Just as it's proper for the government to prohibit child abuse, it is also proper for the government to ban abortions.

Merlyn, You realize that both of the Lovings would've spent a year in jail for violating this law if it hadn't been overturned. Plus, even if the supreme court hadn't declared marriage to be a civil right, one justice pointed out that it couldn't possibly be constitutional for an act to be a crime solely due to the races of the actors. That's what the Virginia law did. Okay greatIm glad there was a good Constitutional argument to denounce and overturn the ban. But I stand by my point, there will always be good and bad laws. I prefer those laws good, bad, or indifferent to be cre

Okay packsaddle, I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. Allow me to answer your question. To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them? When the said individual decides killing her child is an option that she wishes to pursue. It should not be available as a legal option. Now, ask yourself the same question, but make the child the object of concern as opposed to the mother. Could you tell me when you step in to protect the child? Is

To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them? Interestinglyand ironically, you seem oblivious to the life of the child when you pose this question. In other words, your bias is apparent. You dont believe the unborn represents a human life worth defending, only the mother. While I am all for "women's rights", I don't support their right to kill an unborn child, even one that they might be carrying. The right of the child to live should take prio

Merlyn, And, as before, a quite large majority wanted such a law. I'm pretty sure even a majority of black citizens were in favor of such a law at the time. I can't see how your position could allow for a popular law like that to be ruled unconstitutional. If so, then reference the second portion of my last post, which said: Regardless, my point is not that every law created or endorsed by the majority is a good law. But the courts should not force their idea of morality (rightly or wrongly) on the public when the will of the majority has been expressed into law. Im not sa

Society can make things miserable for women who want the choice. Thats one way of viewing it. Society should do everything possible to protect innocent babies. Thats another way to view it. But the choice will be there nevertheless. True - the choice between right and wrong is always available, but thats not limited to abortion.

GB, Saying that laws against murder, rape and incest are examples of Christian values is akin to saying that eating healthy is a Christian value. You missed my point. In fact, if you view these examples as something other than Christian values, youre proving my point. Just like one cannot say laws against incest is exclusively a Christian value, one cannot say laws against homosexual marriage and abortion are exclusively Christian values. So if the majority votes for such laws, the courts should not overturn the law by claiming the impetus for such legislation is religious. M

For example: Let's say that the majority of voters in Massachusetts get a law passed that bans same-sex marriages. The MA Supreme Court overturns that law as unconstitutional. How does that violate the rights of those majority voters? It violates their rights because its the will of the people. The US government should never circumvent the will of the people so long as individual Constitutional protections are not being violated. Per your example, I do not believe a ban on homosexual marriages violates any protected right provided by the Constitution. Is their ability to practice t

I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs. Murder and rape are examples of morality being codified as law. Now, as to the Christian part of the argument - I have to ask two questions. First, who gets to determine whether or not a value is of Christian origin? And second, who gets to determine the mindset of each voter as they cast their vote seeking to have such a law created? I think the answer to both questions is nobody. Again, the government is violating everyones right when t

But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok? I will answer that revised question, but Id like to point out that I already gave you several paragraphs in response to your first question which pretty much answers this revision. Regardless, I will try again. First, I have enough confidence in the majority of American voters that such a law would never come to pass. Second, when we vote for our representatives or ev

DanKroh, I dont believe that your example is valid. Our Constitution provides for some individual protections, most notably for this example - the establishment clause. While I doubt that you and I interpret this clause in the same way - I think we can agree the federal government cannot force individuals to join a religion. Your hypothetical would force non-religious individuals to join a faith so to be married. So what about abortion? You might ask. I presupposed you would because Ive seen this logic applied elsewhere. In the case of anti-abortion laws, there is no leverag

I agree that the laws of this nation should NOT be decided by Christians exclusively, in an attempt to force their morality on others. However, I do believe our country should have laws that reflect the will of the majority. More accurately, the majority should be able to elect their representatives. Those representatives should create and pass laws that represent the will of the majority. Now, if the majority desires laws that so happen to reflect Christian morality, then it should be so. The will of the majority should not be denied just because their desires reflect the same valu

Acco40, Ah abortion, let's gravitate to something less inflammatory than talking about religion! I think that was OGEs point. One should NOT view the abortion issue as a religious debate. OGE, one thing abortion is definitely not (in most cases) is murder. Murder is a legal term. Really? Hmmm. So when Cain killed Abel, it was not murder because man had not written a law yet stating it to be so? To commit murder is a crime. Obtaining or providing an abortion is legal in many states so by definition it is not murder. By that logic - Back in the day, when it wa

Merlyn - It comes down to this: I am not going to make definitive, declarative statements about what I would do if God presented me with a dilemma, merely to demonstrate my convictions to a skeptic. If/When I am presented with such a scenario, I am certain that God will give me enough insight, moral fortitude, and wisdom to do whatever he asks of me. And if I fail, I am confident that I am forgiven through the blood of Christ. However, to speculate about what He might ask us to do, much less to ponder His motivation in a hypothetical, is to dishonor God. We are infinitely less in substa

Excellent point Ed. Just like lobotomies were once commonly practiced - calling something a "medical procedure" does not make it noble or even humane. And in the case of abortion I believe it is murder (whether or not the participants realize it or not)..