Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Obama EO endangers Religious Liberty

Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:34:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com...

The executive order would prevent Christian and other religious organizations with federal contracts from requiring workers to adhere to the tenets of their religious beliefs. Christianity Today reports the order could impact religious non-profits such as World Vision, World Relief and Catholic Charities.

The Obama administration and its militant cronies want to tell Christians whom to hire, how to run their business and how to think.

And now the president has decreed that any religious group that holds viewpoints divergent from the LGBT agenda is not worthy of federal tax dollars.

Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a gathering at the White House Forum on Global LGBT Human Rights that it was their responsibility to sway theological thinking on the LGBT issue.

"For the faith community, how can we reinforce to religious groups that God loves all the children of his creation equally?" she asked the crowd.

"Change will come," she went on to say. "It"s already coming."

Indeed, it has. And it appears the president has decided to "reinforce" the government"s theology on Christians by using his pen and phone.

And woe be to any Christian American who refuses to comply.

Denny Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. addressed the issues at hand in an essay titled, "Are Christian Colleges Free to be Christian?"

"There are people who are willing to use whatever means necessary to force religious institutions to conform to the new sexual morality," he wrote. "Any individual or institution that refuses to comply will have to face the consequences."

So what is the next logical step in the government"s systematic effort to marginalize Christianity? Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, suggests to me that churches might want to play close attention to their tax-exempt status.

"The problem with this executive order is that it paves the way for the next one " which could withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast licenses for religious organizations holding biblical beliefs with which the administration disagrees," Jeffress told me.

The Obama administration seems hell-bent on forcing Christians to assimilate to the militant LGBT agenda. Resistance is futile.
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 10:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not in the context of the 1st Amendment which President Obama is ignoring
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 10:14:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 10:06:16 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not in the context of the 1st Amendment which President Obama is ignoring

Ummmm, yeah, even in that context.
Accepting federal money, means you accept federal laws and policies, such as:
affirmative action
pay equality
prevailing wages
and a whole host of other things that would violate any freedom of associations

But, again, if you don't want the money, don't apply for it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 10:18:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 10:14:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:06:16 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not in the context of the 1st Amendment which President Obama is ignoring

Ummmm, yeah, even in that context.
Accepting federal money, means you accept federal laws and policies, such as:
affirmative action
pay equality
prevailing wages
and a whole host of other things that would violate any freedom of associations

But, again, if you don't want the money, don't apply for it.

So President Obama can ignore Freedom of Religion...technically that's Congress' call and even they are obliged to obey the Constitution
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 10:22:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 10:18:36 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:14:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:06:16 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not in the context of the 1st Amendment which President Obama is ignoring

Ummmm, yeah, even in that context.
Accepting federal money, means you accept federal laws and policies, such as:
affirmative action
pay equality
prevailing wages
and a whole host of other things that would violate any freedom of associations

But, again, if you don't want the money, don't apply for it.

So President Obama can ignore Freedom of Religion...technically that's Congress' call and even they are obliged to obey the Constitution

Where in the Constitution, or any other law, does it say that business X must apply for federal dollars?
It doesn't.
Ergo, there is no violation, since the accepting of money is VOLUNTARY.

There is zero obligation to take the money, therefore there is not coercion, ergo, no violation.
The government makes a blanket policy, and if people want to reject the money, that is their call. How is it a violation? NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO TAKE THE MONEY.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 10:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 10:22:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:18:36 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:14:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:06:16 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not in the context of the 1st Amendment which President Obama is ignoring

Ummmm, yeah, even in that context.
Accepting federal money, means you accept federal laws and policies, such as:
affirmative action
pay equality
prevailing wages
and a whole host of other things that would violate any freedom of associations

But, again, if you don't want the money, don't apply for it.

So President Obama can ignore Freedom of Religion...technically that's Congress' call and even they are obliged to obey the Constitution

Where in the Constitution, or any other law, does it say that business X must apply for federal dollars?
It doesn't.
Ergo, there is no violation, since the accepting of money is VOLUNTARY.

There is zero obligation to take the money, therefore there is not coercion, ergo, no violation.
The government makes a blanket policy, and if people want to reject the money, that is their call. How is it a violation? NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO TAKE THE MONEY.

Hello: they can't mandate that religious charities go against their religious beliefs just because they are applying for tax dollars to help the poor. Also many believe Church's tax exempt status by the over reaching IRS will be next to force compliance in Churches.
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 11:15:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 10:51:03 PM, YYW wrote:
Being a homophobic bigot =/= Being a Christian

I'm not really trying to run a popularity contest here...

I could call you a "bigot" for being insensitive to a Christian's religion by forcing your beliefs on them...

If a gay man or woman wants to get a job let them get it outside of these religious charities.
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 11:37:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 11:15:22 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:51:03 PM, YYW wrote:
Being a homophobic bigot =/= Being a Christian

I'm not really trying to run a popularity contest here...

I could call you a "bigot" for being insensitive to a Christian's religion by forcing your beliefs on them...

If a gay man or woman wants to get a job let them get it outside of these religious charities.

You are a disgrace to Christianity. I have nothing more to say on the subject.
Tsar of DDO
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:20:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 7:34:58 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...
Christianity Today reports the order could impact religious non-profits such as World Vision, World Relief and Catholic Charities.

Note first that although this looks like a news article and is placed prominently under the NEWS division head, Fox covers its crap reporting by adding a small preface "Todd's American Dispatch" and noting at the end this is only political commentary, not actual reporting. They do this knowing that without some indication that this is not a news report, they'd be violating even the most basic journalistic standard.

Notice that Fox doesn't report as fact that these 3 non-profits would be impacted because that would be a flat out lie. Instead, some guy named Todd is just stating that he thinks that another website said such a thing, confident that few will check that fact.

When we actually look at the Christianity Today article (CT generally adheres to a far more rigorous journalistic standard than Fox, but then so does People magazine), we learn that

"Many religious organizations, such as World Vision, World Relief, and Catholic Charities partner with the federal government, but often receive grants, not contracts, from the government, said Stanley Carlson-Thies, director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. (World Vision, for instance, is a grant recipient but not a contractor with the federal government, said Cynthia Colin, a spokesperson for the organization.)

However, federal funds for overseas relief and development are increasingly allocated by contracts, and prison services are also funded through contracts, so some religious organizations will likely be affected, Carlson-Thies said."

So, World Vision, World Relief, and Catholic Charities are not Fed contractors, but some Christian charities who contract with the govt for prison funds and foreign aid monies worry they might be denied. Interestingly, all three of these large charitable organizations have strongly worded non-discrimination policies regarding LGBT peoples. Indeed, Catholic Charities was one of the first organizations in the world to focus aid on folks infected with HIV and AIDs and has been providing adoption services for same-sex couple since the 70's. So none of these three are in any way impacted by the EO and would likely take offense at Todd's implication.

We might also note that Fox News itself has always had a strong LGBT anti-discrimination policy and has offered same-sex benefits to its employees since 2005 as does any American business that wishes to remain competitive.

The Obama administration and its militant cronies want to tell Christians whom to hire, how to run their business and how to think.

Christianity Today was careful to report and Fox News was careful to ignore that Obama preserved the exemption for contractors who wish to hire according to their religion. So if some company still wishes to only hire people from a church that interprets Christ's message as "Love your neighbor only so long as he looks and acts and thinks like you do," they are still free to do so and one assumes exclude most LGBT folks in that fashion.

And now the president has decreed that any religious group that holds viewpoints divergent from the LGBT agenda is not worthy of federal tax dollars.

That's the conclusion Fox clearly hoped you would draw, but the CT article is clear: you can still hate gays and receive fed tax grants, benefits, subsidies, etc. but the Feds will no longer buy a service from you if wish to make a public statement re: LGBT to the extent that you refuse to employ them, etc.

Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a gathering at the White House Forum on Global LGBT Human Rights that it was their responsibility to sway theological thinking on the LGBT issue.

"For the faith community, how can we reinforce to religious groups that God loves all the children of his creation equally?" she asked the crowd.

Never mind that Bush's NSA adviser Condaleeza Rice shares a mortgage and a bank account with her "lady-friend" of 25 years, filmmaker Randy Bean. I guess it's ok to be gay so long as you don't pretend to deserve God's love, because that would be unchristian.

"There are people who are willing to use whatever means necessary to force religious institutions to conform to the new sexual morality," he wrote. "Any individual or institution that refuses to comply will have to face the consequences."

Of course, withholding federal tax dollars is not force, although to the extent that most evangelical institutions devote far more energy to making money than to the Sermon on the Mount, it may seem that way to some. If a Christian does not wish to have a same sex relationship there is not a single law anywhere that compels them to do so. So the Obama administration has acknowledged a US dynamic that has been true for more than a decade: taxpayers no longer wish to waste good money to a bunch of old looky-loo proselytizers who feel the need to inspect employees' bedrooms in order to make moral judgements about them. To the extent that such practices identify any potential contractor as dangerously outmoded and out of step with modern business practice, taxpayers can count on improved efficiency if nothing else.

Think of it this way: a computer manufacturer has the right to continue to think that Windows is the best and has the right to continue to make servers that only run that OS, but that doesn't mean that the Govt should waste taxpayer money on an outmoded way of thinking.

So what is the next logical step in the government"s systematic effort to marginalize Christianity?

Well let's not pretend that you or Fox speak for all Christians. 64% of US evangelical Christians support Gay marriage as do 62% of US Catholics. The median age for Fox viewership is 68 and the opinions now represented by that propaganda machine must either change or fade from history in the next 10 years. Participation in Christianity is at an all time high in the US. The marginalization does not come from the US Govt so much as mainstream Christianity, which can no longer reconcile hate-based prejudice with the teachings of Christ.

"The problem with this executive order is that it paves the way for the next one " which could withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast licenses for religious organizations holding biblical beliefs with which the administration disagrees," Jeffress told me.

Halleluiah for that! Is there is scummier bunch of robbing the elderly, tax dodging millionaires than the thugs running networks like Trinity and Daystar?

The Obama administration seems hell-bent on forcing Christians to assimilate to the militant LGBT agenda.

Militant LGBT? Isn't it remarkable how non-militant the LGBT movement has been? How many Christians have been murdered in the name of LGBT activism? I can't think of any? Harvey Milk was right: all LGBT folks had to do was tell their families who they were and in a single generation the nation would change their mind about gay rights. To bad he was assassinated by a militant Christian before he could see the transformation.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:23:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 11:37:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2014 11:15:22 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:51:03 PM, YYW wrote:
Being a homophobic bigot =/= Being a Christian

I'm not really trying to run a popularity contest here...

I could call you a "bigot" for being insensitive to a Christian's religion by forcing your beliefs on them...

If a gay man or woman wants to get a job let them get it outside of these religious charities.

You are a disgrace to Christianity. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Then quote the Bible and prove I am wrong
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:25:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To Oromagi: Just because it's an opinion piece at Fox does not mean it's not important...very hard to get permission to write opinions under Fox's Name

Also: The story is elswhere including the NY Times and USA Today
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 3:23:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:25:41 AM, Jikpamu wrote:
To Oromagi: Just because it's an opinion piece at Fox does not mean it's not important...very hard to get permission to write opinions under Fox's Name

Not really. I am good friends with a guy who was an editor at Fox HQ for 15 years and according to him the only true qualifier at Fox is a demonstrated loyalty to the Republican party.

My objection is not to the fact that it is opinion but that it is opinion concealed in the cloak of news and that Todd deliberately re-wrote the quoted source to suggest something rather different than what the original piece said. Nor is an opinion piece exempt from the rules of journalism that expect two, original corroborating sources rather than simply saying some web site said something and then lying about what it said.

Why, I wonder, doesn't it make you angry that you cited a source that got very simple facts so wrong? Why justify Fox's deception when you could just go to CT and create a new link to an honest report?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 8:30:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 7:34:58 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

The executive order would prevent Christian and other religious organizations with federal contracts from requiring workers to adhere to the tenets of their religious beliefs.

Good.

Christianity Today reports the order could impact religious non-profits such as World Vision, World Relief and Catholic Charities.

Yeah. Just like the Emancipation Proclamation "impacted" Southern businesses. Boo-hoo.

The Obama administration and its militant cronies want to tell Christians whom to hire, how to run their business and how to think.

No they don't. They aren't doing that here.

And now the president has decreed that any religious group that holds viewpoints divergent from the LGBT agenda is not worthy of federal tax dollars.

What LGBT "agenda"?

Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a gathering at the White House Forum on Global LGBT Human Rights that it was their responsibility to sway theological thinking on the LGBT issue.

"For the faith community, how can we reinforce to religious groups that God loves all the children of his creation equally?" she asked the crowd.

"Change will come," she went on to say. "It"s already coming."

Indeed, it has. And it appears the president has decided to "reinforce" the government"s theology on Christians by using his pen and phone.

Equality is bad ... how?

And woe be to any Christian American who refuses to comply.

Yeah, and woe be to any NeoNazi American that discriminates based on race. Why is this bad?

Denny Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. addressed the issues at hand in an essay titled, "Are Christian Colleges Free to be Christian?"

"There are people who are willing to use whatever means necessary to force religious institutions to conform to the new sexual morality," he wrote. "Any individual or institution that refuses to comply will have to face the consequences."

So what is the next logical step in the government"s systematic effort to marginalize Christianity? Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, suggests to me that churches might want to play close attention to their tax-exempt status.

This doesn't "marginalize" Christianity. Hiring people doesn't mean you have to agree with their lifestyle nor does it mean you are condoning it.

"The problem with this executive order is that it paves the way for the next one " which could withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast licenses for religious organizations holding biblical beliefs with which the administration disagrees," Jeffress told me.

The Obama administration seems hell-bent on forcing Christians to assimilate to the militant LGBT agenda. Resistance is futile.

If this was an EO saying that Muslims can't discriminate against Christians you wouldn't be saying dick, so STFU.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 8:31:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not quite, but rather, if you want me to give you money, I have every right to set the conditions upon which I'm willing to give it to you.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 8:32:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 10:18:36 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:14:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/21/2014 10:06:16 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not in the context of the 1st Amendment which President Obama is ignoring

Ummmm, yeah, even in that context.
Accepting federal money, means you accept federal laws and policies, such as:
affirmative action
pay equality
prevailing wages
and a whole host of other things that would violate any freedom of associations

But, again, if you don't want the money, don't apply for it.

So President Obama can ignore Freedom of Religion...technically that's Congress' call and even they are obliged to obey the Constitution

No Freedom of Religion is being ignored or abridged here.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 8:53:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 8:31:33 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

Not quite, but rather, if you want me to give you money, I have every right to set the conditions upon which I'm willing to give it to you.

Same idea. I was thinking more along the lines of patronage, not charity.
As usual, spoken better by you.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:16:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 3:23:46 AM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:25:41 AM, Jikpamu wrote:
To Oromagi: Just because it's an opinion piece at Fox does not mean it's not important...very hard to get permission to write opinions under Fox's Name

Not really. I am good friends with a guy who was an editor at Fox HQ for 15 years and according to him the only true qualifier at Fox is a demonstrated loyalty to the Republican party.

My objection is not to the fact that it is opinion but that it is opinion concealed in the cloak of news and that Todd deliberately re-wrote the quoted source to suggest something rather different than what the original piece said. Nor is an opinion piece exempt from the rules of journalism that expect two, original corroborating sources rather than simply saying some web site said something and then lying about what it said.

Why, I wonder, doesn't it make you angry that you cited a source that got very simple facts so wrong? Why justify Fox's deception when you could just go to CT and create a new link to an honest report?

Hello: Fox does not just want anyone posting under their banner...go ahead and try to apply for an account to post to their new site...good luck...and also many other sites have this story
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:25:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Bible on all this Gay Abomination Stuff:

Isaiah 45:10-11 (NIV 2011)

(10) Woe to the one who says to a father, "What have you begotten?" or to a mother, "What have you brought to birth?"

*** You are NOT born gay. You were born "straight" from your mother's womb. ***

(11) "This is what the LORD says" the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?

*** Just cause Obama says you are born gay does not mean God approves. ***

Reference: http://www.foxnews.com...

President Obama signed an executive order Monday barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity " ignoring the pleas of Christian and other faith leaders to include an exemption for religious organizations.

Leviticus 18:22 (NIV 2011) - " "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:29:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:20:39 AM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/21/2014 7:34:58 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...
Christianity Today reports the order could impact religious non-profits such as World Vision, World Relief and Catholic Charities.

Note first that although this looks like a news article and is placed prominently under the NEWS division head, Fox covers its crap reporting by adding a small preface "Todd's American Dispatch" and noting at the end this is only political commentary, not actual reporting. They do this knowing that without some indication that this is not a news report, they'd be violating even the most basic journalistic standard.

Notice that Fox doesn't report as fact that these 3 non-profits would be impacted because that would be a flat out lie. Instead, some guy named Todd is just stating that he thinks that another website said such a thing, confident that few will check that fact.

The Fool: That was a good call, I seen that too. Fox is not going to commit on saying something like that. Most people are na"ve about how Deceptive Internet news is.. whatever the Ideological slant.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 3:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:16:39 AM, Jikpamu wrote:
My objection is not to the fact that it is opinion but that it is opinion concealed in the cloak of news and that Todd deliberately re-wrote the quoted source to suggest something rather different than what the original piece said. Nor is an opinion piece exempt from the rules of journalism that expect two, original corroborating sources rather than simply saying some web site said something and then lying about what it said.

Hello: Fox does not just want anyone posting under their banner...go ahead and try to apply for an account to post to their new site...good luck...and also many other sites have this story

I see, so you were talking about random contributions from the viewership.

Yes, because Fox's target demographic is the paranoid pensioner crowd, I can see how you'd have to lock down the audience participation portion. Otherwise, Fox would just get "Lady Gaga is the true Anti-Christ" posts all day long and the mental health of Fox viewers would quickly become a story that undermines their propaganda. I would agree that the random quacks who reply to a Fox news story need not respect any journalistic standard but if that were the situation then citing such a post as your source for information would be even harder to credit, wouldn't it?

But no. Todd whatisname is a Fox employee. He is paid to have these opinions and disseminate them on demand.

It is sometimes difficult to tell propaganda from factual reporting in the Internet age but that makes the study of such discernment all the more important. If a person can't tell the difference between professional reporting and some dude's facebook post then I would recommend they acquire such skills before posting further political commentary.
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 4:23:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:25:19 AM, Jikpamu wrote:
The Bible on all this Gay Abomination Stuff:

Jesus' instruction to those who worry about the sins of others rather than their own souls:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother,
Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye;
and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Matthew 7:1-6

so-

Unless a man pretends that he is perfect, he should consider how he'd feel if he were fired from his job for his sins (divorce, extramarital sex, eating pork, etc) and so discover compassion for his brothers.

Unless a man pretends that he is perfect, he should consider how he'd feel if he were denied civil liberties by some official who disapproves of his sin while professing at the same time that no religion shall be given precedence.

By Christian teaching, we are all sinners but few of the sins we commit are crimes or merit disenfranchisement from the state. By Christian teaching, the state is not an instrument of faith and attempts to make it so corrupt the faithful.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 6:24:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 4:23:16 PM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:25:19 AM, Jikpamu wrote:
The Bible on all this Gay Abomination Stuff:

Jesus' instruction to those who worry about the sins of others rather than their own souls:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother,
Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye;
and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Matthew 7:1-6

so-

Unless a man pretends that he is perfect, he should consider how he'd feel if he were fired from his job for his sins (divorce, extramarital sex, eating pork, etc) and so discover compassion for his brothers.

Unless a man pretends that he is perfect, he should consider how he'd feel if he were denied civil liberties by some official who disapproves of his sin while professing at the same time that no religion shall be given precedence.

By Christian teaching, we are all sinners but few of the sins we commit are crimes or merit disenfranchisement from the state. By Christian teaching, the state is not an instrument of faith and attempts to make it so corrupt the faithful.

Psalm 101:2-5 (New International Version 2011)
Ps 101:2 I will be careful to lead a blameless life" when will you come to me? I will conduct the affairs of my house with a blameless heart.
Ps 101:3 I will not look with approval on anything that is vile. I hate what faithless people do; I will have no part in it.
Ps 101:4 The perverse of heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with what is evil.
Ps 101:5 Whoever slanders their neighbor in secret, I will put to silence; whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart, I will not tolerate.

I am practicing what I preach. The whole judging passage has been taken out of context to encourage tolerance of sin.
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 7:24:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 6:24:31 PM, Jikpamu wrote:

Psalm 101:2-5 (New International Version 2011)
I am practicing what I preach. The whole judging passage has been taken out of context to encourage tolerance of sin.

Interesting that you would use the poetry of a gay man to defend your intolerance of gays:

" The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul....Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

"And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee."

"So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul."

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. "

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever."

"How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places." I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. "

1&2 Samuel

The relationship between Jonathan and David was undeniably romantic, made even more obvious in the Hebrew and Greek translations in which a linguistic distinction is made between romantic and brotherly love with romance clearly indicated.

Do you really suppose that the gay author of the poetry you quote would appreciate its use an argument for intolerance? What of his descendent Jesus who demonstrates no shame at being called a descendent of Israel's most famous homosexual?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

^^^ I second this.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:22:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:20:05 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

^^^ I second this.

Christian Charities do a lot of good. They should not be denied from helping the poor just because they won't hire gays.
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:25:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:22:44 PM, Jikpamu wrote:
At 7/23/2014 7:20:05 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:25:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
All the more reason why federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to charities.

However, I don't shed a tear over this, since federal money is not just given, it is offered, or most likely, applied for.

If I give you money, I have every right to tell you how to use it.

^^^ I second this.

Christian Charities do a lot of good. They should not be denied from helping the poor just because they won't hire gays.

I don't care if they do a lot of good or not. If they choose to accept federal funds, then they choose to accept whatever mandate the federal government puts on it. The federal government is not restricting their free practice of religion, its just not helping them do it. Nothing in the constitution says that the government needs to help/endorse a particular religious belief. Au contraire, the constitution forbids that very thing.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 8:52:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Religious freedom does not imply the right to discriminate against other people. Claiming that it does disgraces the religion you claim to be a part of. This OP is sad, as are all posts from this forum member.
Tsar of DDO
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 9:12:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:22:44 PM, Jikpamu wrote:

Christian Charities do a lot of good. They should not be denied from helping the poor just because they won't hire gays.

And not one charity has been so denied by Obama's administration in spite of jikpamu's hyperventilating.

If, in future, a Christian charity wishes to do business with the US taxpayers, selling some service at a Federal prison for example, then they must simply pretend they don't discriminate against LGBT. A charity that would deny help to the poor because they were mad about a failed future business negotiation would not be a Christian charity. In fact, any charity that would sell its help to the poor rather than simply offering that help pro bono fails to be Christian by any interpretation.