the Glenn Beck rally

[CW&M Mom]

Hmmm....tax dollars supporting killing innocent babies vs. tax dollars supporting the sick and unemployed. I'd gladly accept an increase in taxes to make abortion illegal.

abortions will still happen though....illegal or legal they will still happen. I've come to accept that...that there is not a legal measure that will stop all abortions.

[loaslaen]

abortions will still happen though....illegal or legal they will still happen. I've come to accept that...that there is not a legal measure that will stop all abortions.

They won't happen at the same rate, and violators would face prosecution. That's the difference. Just because "things will still happen" is not a reason to make them legal. Teenagers will still drink and smoke, should we just make smoking and drinking legal for all ages since "it will happen anyway"?

[ptblues2]

My comment about God and Guns was to point out how outside the norm people can get. It seems silly to me that both political parties are rounding up one issue voters to try to stay in office. One party hides behind the church because without it they would never hold office. When in office they systemically strip the National Treasurer and the working class. The other party hides behind the poor and gays. They rebuild the lost wealth and the middle class but tear down the small business in the process.

I live and believe in many points projected by both parties. I believe in National Health Care because most of my extended family are walking wounded due to untreaded health issues and some are flying to Panama for cheap healthcare and dental work. I believe in guns because we can and must take care of ourselves. I worship God. Of the two parties I fall mostly with the Democrats because the Republicans starve out the working man....me. I must go with the group that harms my family the least. To each his own...

[cupunlvr]

Well, you & Beth & Holiday & Smee are correct. Now I REALLY need a vacation!

People are selfish. It's not a money issue - it's an issue within.

Where my thinking lies is if we solve the problem within, then we'll have no money issues amongst us. Realistically speaking, we will always deal with evil & therefore, a government, police, judges... they'll always be needed.

However, there's also a pattern going on here & it's very plain for many Christian conservatives to see: A godless government cannot solve that problem within. They have actually worsened it by giving the illusion that money can solve anything.

We simply want more of our money going to those that work for the One who can solve all things.

And no, that's not an oxymoron. Everything takes money, but I want it used wisely & our government never uses it wisely.

Please review your post above and explain how this should not be interpreted as pushing your beliefs onto others? as apparently according to a comment you just left for me on a rep you "adamantly disagree" that you were "pushing anything or anyone".......

You are playing a game of semantics or you can't handle the truth......which is it?

[loaslaen]

Just don't think you should be able to make your beliefs law, then act like you're being oppressed when some of us radical First Amendment types think it's a bad idea.

No one's trying to make Christianity a law. We're just trying to KEEP the law already granted us under the First Amendment, which is freedom to PRACTICE our religion. If Presidents under the First Amendment have publicly prayed, publicly mentioned God, and otherwise have practiced their religion within the public offices they held, what makes people think it's ok to ban people from praying at a graduation, before a sporting event, or before a public meal?

Radical First Amendment types, means changing the meaning of the First Amendment to radically say something that it never did, as evidenced by the above and many other examples.

[CW&M Mom]

No one's trying to make Christianity a law. We're just trying to KEEP the law already granted us under the First Amendment, which is freedom to PRACTICE our religion. If Presidents under the First Amendment have publicly prayed, publicly mentioned God, and otherwise have practiced their religion within the public offices they held, what makes people think it's ok to ban people from praying at a graduation, before a sporting event, or before a public meal?

Radical First Amendment types, means changing the meaning of the First Amendment to radically say something that it never did, as evidenced by the above and many other examples.

no one cares if there are prayers before sporting events or public meals as long as the government doesn't dictate that they have to be done....and as long as they are not sporting events that are run via the government (like public school sporting events).

It gets sticky at a public highschool graduation because that public high school is basically owned by the government and gets government money. If it's a private school graduation...where they don't get government money...no one cares.

If a extreme atheist who tried to sue the private school they attend because that private school had a prayer before the graduation he would lose...because there is no protection of freedom of religion in a private setting...or separation of church and private entity.

[loaslaen]

no one cares if there are prayers before sporting events or public meals as long as the government doesn't dictate that they have to be done....and as long as they are not sporting events that are run via the government (like public school sporting events).

It gets sticky at a public highschool graduation because that public high school is basically owned by the government and gets government money. If it's a private school graduation...where they don't get government money...no one cares.

If a extreme atheist who tried to sue the private school they attend because that private school had a prayer before the graduation he would lose...because there is no protection of freedom of religion in a private setting...or separation of church and private entity.

I'm talking exactly about public school functions prohibiting prayers. As I stated, if a President can have prayers during his public inauguration, then students should be able to have prayers before their graduations, or sporting events, or whatever else.

If CONGRESS themselves can have a prayer at the opening daily session of Congress, then there's no way you can interpret the freedom of religion as not allowing school prayer.

[CW&M Mom]

I'm talking exactly about public school functions prohibiting prayers. As I stated, if a President can have prayers during his public inauguration, then students should be able to have prayers before their graduations, or sporting events, or whatever else.

If CONGRESS themselves can have a prayer at the opening daily session of Congress, then there's no way you can interpret the freedom of religion as not allowing school prayer.

The school districts get sued and they lose. I don't see the point of pushing it with them

It's not the end of the world...I can pray before the event if I feel the need too .

[server18]

This turned waaaaaaaaay of topic. I thought Religion wasn't suppose to be discussed

[tacatcon]

Ladies and gents
Just want to remind you about the HUTC rules about discussing religion:
* No religious debate or discussion is allowed in HUTC.




What this means:

• You may not debate religion in this forum.
• You may not debate other topics and use religion as your platform.
• You may not bash, lump all members of a religion as being bad or not as good as, or otherwise bad mouth religions or those that practice a particular religion.
• You may use statements that something is against your belief or religion but we ask that you refrain from quoting scripture, or elaborating on your religion and what it teaches.
• You may offer well wishes and prayer requests when asked for.
• You may join or start a social group here at HCW and discuss religion to your hearts content provided that the discussion in the social group(s) do not break any of the other rules of this site.

Members who disregard this rule will be removed from the Hot Under The Collar forum.


I think we had more than a few posts teetering on the edge here and a few that definitely went over the line. I've deleted the posts so Admin can review. Please keep this respectful and get it back on topic.