Anti-Semitism In France!

[green 6]

Cusano makes a good point. Just as I, an atheist, would be unable to teach my children to believe, the devout Christian would find it impossible to teach his or her children to be skeptical.

[green 6]

As for misspelling and wonky grammar, I generally make a practice of proof reading my own material before entering it for your consumption. What I first write can often sound quite peculiar.:phanvan :embarassed: :rolleyes

[Ron Cusano 0]

A group supporting people's public rights and a ministering preaching doctrinal truths? They both have a right to do what they are doing. You seem to think that people in congregations are mindless, zombies without minds of their own, that are unable to decern what is true for themselves. That is way off base and groundless. People belong to congregations because they hear what they want to hear according to their beliefs. No one talks them into anything!

All youse guys complaining about Planned Parenthood PREACHING... just remember the difference between a group supporting people's rights going public with their position, and a pastor standing in front of his obedient congregation, from his pulpit, preaching against abortion as being immoral and a sin and a reason for going to HELL. A group supporting people's public rights and a ministering preaching doctrinal truths? They both have a right to do what they are doing. You seem to think that people in congregations are mindless, zombies without minds of their own, that are unable to decern what is true for themselves. That is way off base and groundless. People belong to congregations because they hear what they want to hear according to their beliefs. No one talks them into anything!

Please tell me that you all see the distinction.

Second point I'd like to make is that the term lobbying has been used and I'm not sure that it is accurate used in this context. I have never seen the Planned Parenthood organization, for instance, LOBBY for abortion. Have you ever seen their ads and posters? Same difference!

As far as the spelling issue here, I will admit that I am one of those rotten people who mentioned some especially bad spelling here - not to accuse someone directly, but you know who you are... almost all of us! We all misspell words and use grammar incorrectly and are guilty of other errors that are high crimes and misdemeanors in our use of the English language to try to convey our thoughts. My complaint is that sometimes it is very difficult to read a post that is frought with many, many misspelled words and incorrect usages of words. I'm not looking for perfection, please understand that. I do find some posts very difficult to understand, and I do wonder sometimes about the haste and anger that must be behind that kind of post.

I feel sorry for anyone who has arthritis so bad that it affects their spelling and grammar and word usage. My arthritic knees hurt so bad sometimes that I can't think straight either. That was a bit condesending!

My hands are very arthritic, and sometimes my typos could easily be mistaken for mispelling. Who is the judge and jury to make that call?? Besides, I was not aware this was a grammar class!

[Alexandra 55]

I can disagree strongly! I can only speak for Bible believeing Christians, but the Bible tells us to teach our children the faith from the time that are small so they don't depart from it. In today's world especially, not doing so leaves them open to being innoculated with the godless, anti- religious culture that is so ever present.

Perthaps Dawkin can explain the difference between innoculating children to believe in a fantacy, as he put's it and innoculating children to believe there is no God? Since Dawkin considers God to be a fantacy, perhaps he has a vested interest in kids not believeing in God! Sounds a little biased, doesen't it??

If someone truely believes in God, how could they not, in good conscience, not teach it to their children as fact. The only ones that might have a problem with this are those who don't believe in God, so their's is not a very objective observation and opinion.

Yet there are parents all over the world teaching their children things you would find abhorrent, because they believe in them as fact.

Dawkins' observation was made at the end of an entire book in which he dissects the reasons he believes God is a delusion. So yes, of course it's fair to say that he has a bias. I'm just pointing out that you do, too.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Not really! The may teach things I disagree with or think are off the deep end, but not find abhorrent. But, things like sucide bombing and killing unbelievers is abhorrent to the whole civilized world, and not just religious group. Believing in God, which is embraced in some way but the majority of the world's population can not be considered abhorrent, except by those who don't believe in God. There is a big distinction here.

An athiest writing a book and concluding that God is a delusion and saying it's biased? Ya think?? That is like a Christian writing a book and concluding that God is real! It's past bias, it a foregone colclusion!

Yet there are parents all over the world teaching their children things you would find abhorrent, because they believe in them as fact.

Dawkins' observation was made at the end of an entire book in which he dissects the reasons he believes God is a delusion. So yes, of course it's fair to say that he has a bias. I'm just pointing out that you do, too.

[BJean 16]

Oh geez. The thing about public intervention in all things private is wrong. In this country we think we should intervene in any situation where we think another citizen is wrong. That has no place in a free country unless it specifically harms someone else. That includes raising children. If you do not believe that the public schools teach the proper values in children, it is incumbent upon you to do as geezersue says: home school or private school your children. If you believe that spanking is the proper way to discipline your child, spank them in the privacy of your own home when you have a cool head, not in public when you are so angry you are dangerously close to harming your child. When you don't wear a helmet, there are arguments about insurance costs and the cost of cleaning up your bloody head off the pavement, so that affects society as a whole and there are, perhaps reasons for laws requiring helmets and seat belts. If you are a smoker and wish to permeate the air with the outgassing, do it in your own home where you are not polluting others' invironment. When it comes to deciding on using or not using contraceptives, it's nobody else's business. If your form of contraception fails and you need to have an abortion, that's not a decision that should be made by the rest of society. If you want to be married to a person of your own sex, that does no harm to other members of society and they should not make that decision for you. If a minister wants to state his views, religious, political or otherwise, it should be up to the congregation if they want to keep him and listen to him or give him the boot. There are all manner of religious kooks in this country, some who claim that snake handling is part of their religion, who cares? There are witches in this country who would like to have a tax-exempt church in which to perform their rites. Who cares? Either make all churches tax free, or none of them. You can't control what is preached from a pulpit. Or maybe you can, some societies in history have controlled that too. But they were not societies who claimed to be free societies.

The problem with a lot of what has been said at this thread has been posted by one side, in particular, who believes that everyone who does not believe not only in Christianity, but in THEIR brand of Christianity, is wrong and going to hell, and that their brand of Christianity should be the law of the land. That's treading on everyone's rights who have opposing religious beliefs. That's not freedom, that's oppression.

When people from one religious or political group wants to take my freedom away and make me believe as they believe and live as they think I should live, I draw the line and I want to do all I can to prevent that from happening. When we get a president in the Oval Office who wants to use his religion and his own personal beliefs to ensure that there are people serving on the Supreme Court who also practice his religion and who will one day, impose that religion on me and other free citizens of this Country, I think we should be scared and speak out. When the president of the United States uses his religion and his belief system to take up arms against another nation in spite of what the majority of Americans believe and in spite of what his advsisors tell him, we HAVE TO SPEAK OUT or we are in jepoardy of losing all of our freedom in this country. Just because someone puts a religious label on their actions, doesn't mean that they are either RIGHT or GOOD or GODLIKE. It means that they are dictators in their hearts. That's not why I love America or why I think I should respect that president.

Just because someone believes that he is a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR, doesn't give him the right to be a dictator of any kind in this democratic, free, society. God Bless America.

[BJean 16]

Ron, you obviously don't get it. Yes, I was being condescending. It is as much in my nature as your insulting, condescending remarks are in your nature, the disease of arthritis notwithstanding.

[Ron Cusano 0]

This is a great post and I agree with 95% of it. There are a few things I disagree with. First, no evangelical Christian that I know has ever stated, inferred or expounded that their religion should be the law of the land. That is just not factional.

I agree that the law should stay out of our personal affairs, unless those affairs are harmful or immoral. To Christians, abortion and same sex marriage fall into those catagories, so it is imcumbent upon and the right of Conservative Christians to take a stand against them on those grounds, as well as our Bible based spiritual convictions.

If we elect a president who is a Born-Again Christian, how can we expect him not to allow his belief system to guide his decisions. The people of this country knew his convictions before they elected him, so this should not even be an issue.

Oh geez. The thing about public intervention in all things private is wrong. In this country we think we should intervene in any situation where we think another citizen is wrong. That has no place in a free country unless it specifically harms someone else. That includes raising children. If you do not believe that the public schools teach the proper values in children, it is incumbent upon you to do as geezersue says: home school or private school your children. If you believe that spanking is the proper way to discipline your child, spank them in the privacy of your own home when you have a cool head, not in public when you are so angry you are dangerously close to harming your child. When you don't wear a helmet, there are arguments about insurance costs and the cost of cleaning up your bloody head off the pavement, so that affects society as a whole and there are, perhaps reasons for laws requiring helmets and seat belts. If you are a smoker and wish to permeate the air with the outgassing, do it in your own home where you are not polluting others' invironment. When it comes to deciding on using or not using contraceptives, it's nobody else's business. If your form of contraception fails and you need to have an abortion, that's not a decision that should be made by the rest of society. If you want to be married to a person of your own sex, that does no harm to other members of society and they should not make that decision for you. If a minister wants to state his views, religious, political or otherwise, it should be up to the congregation if they want to keep him and listen to him or give him the boot. There are all manner of religious kooks in this country, some who claim that snake handling is part of their religion, who cares? There are witches in this country who would like to have a tax-exempt church in which to perform their rites. Who cares? Either make all churches tax free, or none of them. You can't control what is preached from a pulpit. Or maybe you can, some societies in history have controlled that too. But they were not societies who claimed to be free societies.

The problem with a lot of what has been said at this thread has been posted by one side, in particular, who believes that everyone who does not believe not only in Christianity, but in THEIR brand of Christianity, is wrong and going to hell, and that their brand of Christianity should be the law of the land. That's treading on everyone's rights who have opposing religious beliefs. That's not freedom, that's oppression.

When people from one religious or political group wants to take my freedom away and make me believe as they believe and live as they think I should live, I draw the line and I want to do all I can to prevent that from happening. When we get a president in the Oval Office who wants to use his religion and his own personal beliefs to ensure that there are people serving on the Supreme Court who also practice his religion and who will one day, impose that religion on me and other free citizens of this Country, I think we should be scared and speak out. When the president of the United States uses his religion and his belief system to take up arms against another nation in spite of what the majority of Americans believe and in spite of what his advsisors tell him, we HAVE TO SPEAK OUT or we are in jepoardy of losing all of our freedom in this country. Just because someone puts a religious label on their actions, doesn't mean that they are either RIGHT or GOOD or GODLIKE. It means that they are dictators in their hearts. That's not why I love America or why I think I should respect that president.

Just because someone believes that he is a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR, doesn't give him the right to be a dictator of any kind in this democratic, free, society. God Bless America.

[BJean 16]

Ron: To legislate morality (yours) is to reduce freedom in this country. That goes to the heart of my post.

I for one, knew that Bush was a proclaimed Christian, I did not know that his goal in life was to impose his religious views on all Americans. I did not know that he considered himself annointed by God in all of his decision-making. In many ways, he has lied to us. That is not what I believe most people in this country consider Christian behavior. That is one reason most people in this country feel betrayed. That is on reason people in this country fear him and fear the loss of freedom.

To say that same sex marriage affects you is wrong. To say that it offends your Christian beliefs and your sense of morality may be true, but it has nothing absolutely to do with infringing on your rights or taking away your freedom. Banning same sex marriage is taking away (some) Americans' freedoms. It is wrong.

You probably have a good idea how I feel about your intervention in a woman's right to choose.

Keep your Christian beliefs out of my way. If you respect that this is a free country and that your Christian beliefs have nothing to do with me, you and I will get along fine. Otherwise, to me you're no different than a Muslim extremist telling me that I have to pray to Allah and cover my body from head to toe.

[BJean 16]

P.S. To follow your logic, should we have expected John F. Kennedy to impose his Catholic doctrine on us? And that it is just fine because we knew he was a Catholic when we elected him? Oh please!

[lisah25 3]

Hold on to your hat, because the crowd of protestors that went for my jugler this past week because I used words or expressions they though were condesending and arrogant, and they didn't like how I said things, are sure to come back soon to yell some more, right! In my defense of course!!

I mean, there can't be double standards here, could there??

Couple of thoughts. One there isn't a "crowd of protestors" here, operating with one brain. More then once you've gotten mixed up on who really said what. The person who called you "sweetie" isn't the same one who posted about such nicknames here. Two, isn't "went for my jugler" just a little dramatic...?

[lisah25 3]

No confusion! A lot of the terminolgy I previously used was also paraphrasing, but that didn't seem to matter any. Ant the double standard I am referring to applies to the board as a whole and not specifically you.

That's just silly. We don't all share a brain on this board. We don't always agree.

[lisah25 3]

You are right! My point is then, when I used similar terminology over the past week, why them were such comments insulting, provoking, argumenative, insensitive and everything else that was said. There is a double standard here that is absolutely sick.

Then I have to ask in all seriousness why you stay?

[lisah25 3]

First, no evangelical Christian that I know has ever stated, inferred or expounded that their religion should be the law of the land. That is just not factional.

That's not exactly what BJean said. The point is there are specific beliefs that many Christian want reflected in laws.

I agree that the law should stay out of our personal affairs, unless those affairs are harmful or immoral. To Christians, abortion and same sex marriage fall into those catagories, so it is imcumbent upon and the right of Conservative Christians to take a stand against them on those grounds, as well as our Bible based spiritual convictions.

TOTALLY disagree, at least the immoral part. I agree about things that are harmful. But not immoral. Not unless they harm society, and no one yet has shown me convincing arguements that gay marriage is.

[wavydaby 1]

I said I wasnt gonna post... but I saw this quote on ABCNews:

Czeslaw Milosz. He wrote this poem not long before he died in 2004 at the age of 93.

IF THERE IS NO GOD

If there is no God,

Not everything is permitted to man.

He is still his brother's keeper

And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,

By saying there is no God.