bullets13

again, trying to avoid providing an insurance that provides a legal medical procedure based on their own beliefs... using YOUR religion to dictate the rights of someone else. 

Some would care to judge whole religions based on the action of some, while being judged on individual merits when it comes to their own religion and circumstances. 

  In one ear and out the other.  Again, the law has decided that Christians cannot use THEIR religion to dictate the LEGAL actions of OTHER people.  Sorry that business owners have been oppressed by not being able to oppress their employees, though. 

    you have no idea what you're talking about. SOME Christians think that by not being able to forcefeed Christianity they're being oppressed. There are Christian channels on tv, church services air on major networks on Sunday, kids can gather and pray at school and wear Christian shirts, you can attend church every day of the week if you want (and multiple times on weekends if you so choose) at any of the probably 1500 or more churches just in SETX, you can send your kids to Christian pre-k, Christian elementary schools, Christian middle schools, Christian high schools, and Christian Colleges, you can talk to anyone you want about Christianity, and i really could go on and on and on and on and on and on, but if you choose not to get it by this point, you surely won't with the other 1000 examples i could offer you. In some countries, people are killed for being Christian, have to meet in locked houses and keep their faith a secret for fear of having their families tortured and murdered. That is oppression. Not your inability to justify the decisions you would care to make for OTHER people's lifestyle based on YOUR religion. Too often Christians get confused about their rights as Christian versus their lack of rights when it comes to forcing Christianity on those who don't believe, or their lack of rights when it comes to using Christianity to dictate the rights of non-believers. An example of "rights" I've heard Christians talk about losing: "We cant broadcast our Christian prayer over the high school intercom? We're losing our rights as Christians!" This is flawed reasoning, as Christians not only have the right to pray anywhere and anytime they like while at school, but schools also must allow Christians to gather and meet before and/or after school to pray. So the only "right" being lost is the "right" to force non-Christians to become a part of your prayer.

    No, of course not. Of course, certain Muslims perform acts that I condemn, but the same can be said of certain Christians.

You believing homosexuality is wrong does not make you a bigot. If you were to say, refuse service to someone because they were homosexual, or treat them as a lesser person, then yes, I would consider you a bigot.

Christians who play the "woe is me, I have no rights" card should go somewhere where people are actually oppressed due to their religion.

I don't have a problem with those who don't "endorse" homosexuality. I have a problem with those who discriminate against homosexuals or believe that they deserve less rights than heterosexuals. And as westend said, I don't tolerate bigots. I don't have a problem with people who's beliefs differ from mine, but I'll certainly argue with them as much as the next guy.

I'll give you another example to that. About 15 years ago the security guards at my dad's company all carried .357 revolvers. When they changed to semi auto pistols, they did in fact buy a whole pile of pistols and ammo at once.

The problem is you're attributing Christian beliefs to the media. In Christianity, it's taught both acts are wrong, but as you've stated, many wink at adultery and sex out of wedlock. In mainstream media, homosexuality and adultery are not lumped together. So it's not hypocritical when an act that is seen as wrong (adultery), is not treated the same as an act that many no longer have a problem with (homosexuality). You can't hold the media to YOUR religious standards. Well I guess you can, but don't act surprised when they don't live up to them.

Huh? I think the answer I can give that is- no, Christians should next expect non Christians to live up to their moral standards.

Just reread your post for the third time. If I missed it, you didn't make it. ;)

I'm no genius, but i'm willing to bet this is for whatever armed guards that work in their offices. All government buildings have armed security. This is nothing new. Although this is a pretty good representation of how some political propaganda sites give you some "facts", while effectively leaving out pertinent information in way to misrepresent the facts and rile up their readers. My dad just got reassigned at his job, which does government contract type work. He's moving back into security, and they will provide him with a Glock 19. There are several dozen security guards. So it would be easy for someone to take a requisition and ask "why would (unnamed company) need 40 Glock 19s and 20,000 rounds of ammunition?", when in fact it's a quite reasonable order. but hey, maybe someone can find a source with some actual information that proves me wrong??? i'd love to get outraged with you guys.

    I'd suggest you go click the link that westend provided a little ways back in this thread. It debunks the ENTIRE "Obama didn't acknowledge Tebow" argument as far as i'm concerned, and it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Obama somehow has more respect for being gay than he did for Tebow being Christian.

    I didn't miss your point. I'm just telling you that Christians may hold themselves up to whatever standards they want, but they can't hold other groups to those standards, and if they decide to, it's foolish to be upset or surprised when those other groups fall short of what Christians would have them do. you asked me "Should the media be held to the same standard", and i'm telling you NO, they should not.

    it would be safer to assume that i feel we treat criminals way too easily in our system. I guess in our current system, i don't care much one way or another about the condoms. might as well sell them at the commisary. But i'd much rather see prisoners go to prison and hate it so much that they'd never risk going back. I think we give them too many liberties. I'm not talking about letting guards abuse them, but allowing prisoners to have creature comforts, time to play games, work out, etc... it just doesn't seem like near the deterent it could be.

I watched a special on some Russian prisons, and if we really want to deter crime, we should treat or prisoners like that. They can only move around the prison bent at the waste, with their hands handcuffed and shoved up around their head. Outside time is actually in an empty room, and other than that they do not leave the cell. Except for the jail in Siberia, where they do calistinics at 6 AM in sub-zero temps.

    Should the media be held to the same standards as Christians? I would hardly think so, unless we're going to require members of the media to all be Christians, or have a religion-run media.

I read PAMs post after I wrote mine, and obviously I agree with it

While I don't agree with Obama singling out a player to congratulate him, I do not take this as Obama not calling tebow because of religious reasons. I'd guess that probably 75% of NFL players profess to be Christians, and while few if any are as outspoken about it as Tebow (there are likely as some as serious about it as him who just don't get the exposure tebow does), to call him for that reason would not make sense. Whether you agree with it or not, Sam is a pioneer in the sport. I clearly believe this is a publicity gimmick by Obama, but I don't see it as anything more malicious than that.

I do feel that if the banning ever starts, it will be difficult to enforce. What with the majority of military and law enforcement sharing your and my views on the subject and all...

I agreed with you until the last line. I feel that Tebow was much more the media darling. Regardless of how you feel about Sam, what's happening with him IS big news, whether you support him or disagree with him. Tebow got lots of coverage when he wasn't doing anything, when he was, when he lost, when he won. Sam was brief news when he said he was gay, and will be brief news now. There will be coverage about him, but nothing to the magnitude that tebow got. I also believe that if Sam sucks, but if he still gets playing time, he'll have the same detractors that Tebow did. Part of what made tebow so polarizing was that he sucked, but still had a large core group of supporters who insisted he could do no wrong. While Sam will also get a similar support, albeit from a very different group, if he doesn't perform the pundits will criticise him, just like they did tebow.

Not since one innocent person was accidently hit with the "high capacity" can. That one poor guy is proof we need cans capable of holding no more than 10 ounces.

    I'll be happy to own that. I'll also point out that Tebow was a major news story for like 8 months. Sam was major for about a week when he came out of the closet, and has pretty much been an afterthought since, and now has been back in the spotlight for a couple of days... if he's still the lead on EVERY episode of Sportscenter in 6 months, I'll agree that his amount of unwarranted attention will have matched Tebow's. It's also worth noting that Sam was the SEC (you know the defense capital of the world) Defensive MVP this past season. So I'm curious about something... Tebow clearly got drafted earlier than he should've because of his squeakly clean image. Did Michael Sam fall because of his issues? In your reply that I quoted here, you mention that some said Tebow got too much attention for being a Christian (which I agree that this happened, and i also agree it was true). But Aledo said that Tebow was "constantly bashed for being a Christian", which is a total laugher, considering had he not had the image he had he never would've been a story (or a starter) to begin with, and while being the least talented QB in the league, was the most popular and most reported-upon. You replied "Good point" to Aledo's post, which is why i quoted your reply when disputing the accusation that Tebow was "constantly bashed for being a Christian". There were some apologists for Tebow, who, when the Bronco's defense was going nuts against an amazingly fortuitous schedule of backup after backup QB and RB, would give him all the credit for completing 7-17 passes for 89 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT, and rushing 25 times for 60 yards, in what would somehow end up a 10-7 win for the Broncos. Name any other player in the league that has gotten that sort of leeway. To compare Sam to Tebow is not fair at all, at least until he attains the status of being a player who can underperform incredibly and still get all the credit for his team's success and be the lead on sportcenter every evening.

    I'm not shocked at all that this is how you remember that whole issue going. It's completely inaccurate, but it fits the fairy tale better than the truth. Tebow was bashed on here by a few of us because of his play. Then others would claim we were doing so because he was a Christian. Then he'd have another 72-yard passing day, and we'd bash him again. Then more accusations would come out about us bashing him for being a Christian. what a crock.