Anti-Semitism In France!

[anonemouse 1]

And the laws being created based upon Christian principals are held by the majority!

So abolitionists and suffragists should have just given up the fight because the laws based on the opposition's viewpoint were held by the majority? We all know, from our history classes, that the majority rule isn't necessarily the "right" rule.

[Wheetsin 714]

Sorry Ron, but I left my crystal ball at home -- and can't "just know" that you're talking tongue in cheek.

Maybe at some point people will be able to move beyond whether or not they personally agree with a life that isn't even theirs, and just "be". But no, I'm not a dreamer.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You are right! The difference from my vantage point is that their causes were not immoral by Christian standards and beliefs, so I don't see them as a valid argument. We are not against change, as long as it is n ot against our beliefs.

So abolitionists and suffragists should have just given up the fight because the laws based on the opposition's viewpoint were held by the majority? We all know, from our history classes, that the majority rule isn't necessarily the "right" rule.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I thought it was quite obvious! I don't think things can ever just "be" as you say, when we are talking about things that are so obviously against what the majority believe, or are in opposition to Judeo-Christian ethics and beliefs. I don't think I'm a dreamer either.

Sorry Ron, but I left my crystal ball at home -- and can't "just know" that you're talking tongue in cheek.

Maybe at some point people will be able to move beyond whether or not they personally agree with a life that isn't even theirs, and just "be". But no, I'm not a dreamer.

[anonemouse 1]

The difference from my vantage point is that their causes were not immoral by Christian standards and beliefs, so I don't see them as a valid argument.

But for those time periods, those causes were seen as immoral by most Christian standards and beliefs. I think that, eventually, the fight for gay rights will be seen in the same light as the fights for women's suffrage and for racial equality. It may be many years until then, but eventually the people opposing gay rights will be classified in the same group as the folks who opposed marriage between people of two different races and the people who opposed suffrage.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I don't think so! women's equality and racial equality were never biblical issues. They may have been preceived as wrong during that period of history but they were never opposed because the Bible spoke against them Homosexuality, sam sex marriage and aboution are clearly in a different class by Christian standards. There are direct prohibitions against them in scripture.

But for those time periods, those causes were seen as immoral by most Christian standards and beliefs. I think that, eventually, the fight for gay rights will be seen in the same light as the fights for women's suffrage and for racial equality. It may be many years until then, but eventually the people opposing gay rights will be classified in the same group as the folks who opposed marriage between people of two different races and the people who opposed suffrage.

[Wheetsin 714]

Laurend - seen as immoral by most Christian standards and beliefs

Perhaps the two most widely abused verses used to condemn homosexuality come from Leviticus.

You shall not lie with man as one lies with a women; this is an abomination.

• Leviticus 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death.

• Leviticus 20:13

First of all, the Holiness Code of Leviticus was written primarily as a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Christians today are not bound by the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. (Galatians 3:22-25) If Christians today insist on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then it can only be assumed that they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus.

Among other things, the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits:

• Sexual intercourse during a women's menstrual cycle
  
• Tattoos
  
• Wearing certain types jewelry
  
• Eating rare meat
  
• Wearing clothing made from a blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)
  
• Cross-breeding livestock
  
• Sowing a field with mixed seed
  
• Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood
  
• Men cutting their hair or shaving their beards

[BJean 16]

Ron: If you really do not expect laurend to compromise her current morals by accepting your interpretation of the Bible, why are you arguing with her?

[green 6]

I've always thought that the cool thing about murder with knives versus guns is that it takes a whole lot more time and effort to kill someone with a knife than with a loaded pistol. Maybe someone will have time to reconsider the notion of killing someone with a knife.

Yep, that's what I figure, too. Killing with a knife takes more committment and more work. You do have a chance to change your mind unless you've hit a major artery.:omg:

[green 6]

In the Us, the vast majority of violent crime is also committed by young black men for many of the same reasons that you mentioned. They are also responsible for most of the violent crime against whites too, based upon what I see on TV and in the newspapers. I suspect the same might be true in Canada. If I walk down a street in my home town, I feel my chance of being shot is close to zero as well. Unfortunately, I can't stay just in my own town, and the percentage changes depending on where you travel. I suspect the same is true if you wander into bad areas in Canada.

I lived in upstate New York for about 10 years in a rural area where everyone owned firearms of one kind or another. We never locked our homes or our cars, and your NEVER heard of a violet crime or break in. Why? because everyone owned a gun and if you broke into someone's home or assulted them, you stood a very good chance of being shot!!:clap2:

Well, I live in the core of a very large multi-racial city and feel comfortable walking on our streets, riding on our subway (I don't drive), and shopping in our local stores. This is a society which is, because of our stringent firearm laws, a gunless one. On my shopping expeditions I do sometimes encounter black youths. They are not interested in me because I am an old white fart, and not part of their milieu. In this city, their issues are primarily with each other; it's gang on gang warfare.

[Wheetsin 714]

I lived in upstate New York for about 10 years in a rural area where everyone owned firearms of one kind or another. We never locked our homes or our cars, and your NEVER heard of a violet crime or break in. Why? because everyone owned a gun and if you broke into someone's home or assulted them, you stood a very good chance of being shot!!:clap2:

Is that really how you would reason or explain the why here?

Some woud say that a rural area (aka out of the way, sparsely populated, more chances that someone knows someone, etc.) should expect low crime, by virtue of being a rural area, not by virtue of people owning guns.

[anonemouse 1]

Some woud say that a rural area (aka out of the way, sparsely populated, more chances that someone knows someone, etc.) should expect low crime, by virtue of being a rural area, not by virtue of people owning guns.

Yeah, if owning guns prevented crime, New York City would have a pretty low level of crime. It doesn't, which shows the flaws in the theory.

[Wheetsin 714]

It doesn't, which shows the flaws in the theory.

As stated, it's a logical fallacy.

Ice cream sales go up in summer. Crime goes up in summer. Ice cream causes crime.

Then again, a pint of Chubby Hubby could probably drive me to crime. :heh: :heh:

[green 6]

In the Us, the vast majority of violent crime is also committed by young black men for many of the same reasons that you mentioned. They are also responsible for most of the violent crime against whites too, based upon what I see on TV and in the newspapers. I suspect the same might be true in Canada. If I walk down a street in my home town, I feel my chance of being shot is close to zero as well. Unfortunately, I can't stay just in my own town, and the percentage changes depending on where you travel. I suspect the same is true if you wander into bad areas in Canada.

I lived in upstate New York for about 10 years in a rural area where everyone owned firearms of one kind or another. We never locked our homes or our cars, and your NEVER heard of a violet crime or break in. Why? because everyone owned a gun and if you broke into someone's home or assulted them, you stood a very good chance of being shot!!:clap2:

Cusano, it would seem to me that burglary, and the possibility of violence that may sometimes accompany it, might be considered to fall into two general categories. There are those thefts which are performed by professionals and these individuals target places where there is a significant amount of loot: bank vaults, rich folk's houses.... These guys do their homework and just want the loot.

And then there are the thefts which are committed by the other guys and among these small time crooks would be drug addicts, and the stupid and the lazy. The only boys likely to commit a theft in the country are local townie boys.

Toronto's local array of small time thugs tend to steal cars, prey on cab drivers and corner store operations, and rob the occasional bank during office hours. In general, death does not result from these encounters. They do not escalate for only one side has the artillery. They get their money and then they get away and then it becomes a police matter. Sometimes people do get mugged, beaten up, pickpocketted. Carrying a gun is not really going to change anything, is it?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

We have just had a miserable week. My wife lost an uncle and I lost an aunt. That plus, my wife's mother is very sick in a Brooklyn hospital and my wife is sick in Florida with a condition that is contagious enough that our doctor told her not to go to her mother's bedside, lest she make her mother sicker (and possible kill her).

I have not been to the LBT site for 10 days and I was catching up on some of my thread reading while my wife is resting in bed. I promised her that I would not "waste time" posting (since we have so much catching up to do after two funerals in two different places), but after reading the following, I will break my pledge for one post.

In the Us, the vast majority of violent crime is also committed by young black men for many of the same reasons that you mentioned. They are also responsible for most of the violent crime against whites too, based upon what I see on TV and in the newspapers.

Not according to the FBI

Ron, you should be ashamed to call yourself a man of God and spread such evil propaganda. I had a hard time researching this, because Google linked me to dozens of neo-nazia, and White power sites that all agreed (by spinning some facts into non-valid opinions) that Blacks commit a preponderance of crimes against white.

In 2005, Of the 3785 whites murdered, 3150 were murdered by whites.

Of the 3289 blacks murdered, 2984 were murdered by blacks.

I have read for years that interracial crime only accounts for about 15% to 20% of the crime, white on Black, or Black on white.

Poverty and racism play a larger part than race. In Northern Island, the impoverished and discriminated against Roman catholic minority had similar disproportionate murder and crime figures as the USA's Blacks do.

Shame on You!!