Canton church plans book burning on Halloween to burn 'perversions of God's word'

Oct 15, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Ashvegas

Here's the story, from rawstory.com : A Baptist Church near Asheville, N.C., is hosting a "Halloween book burning" to purge the area of "Satan's" works, which include all non-King James versions of the Bible, popular books by many religious authors and even country music.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 49 of49
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Buncy

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Oct 20, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Answer wrote:
I've read a lot about bible translations and textual comparisons.
Does this preacher not know that the King James Bible was translated from some of the most corrupted manuscript copies? Does he not know King James was gay?(Not that it matters, but it probably would matter to him.)
Later translations were at least translated from better and older texts.
Yet if you compare them they all say about the same, except that some of the delightful obscenities in the KJV have been scrubbed away.

Since: Oct 07

Greenville, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Oct 25, 2009
 
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are referring to Clinton and Obama having a rich history of infringing our rights, you are in ignorance, or worse, denial.
Perhaps I am not cynical enough.
If you are aware, then you have no problem with the Gov violating rights you do not consider important.
Feel free to verify what I say.
Hopefully, you are capable enough to discover this yourself, but if need be, I can show you the way.
Exactly what rights has Clinton or Hussein Obama infringed?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Oct 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what rights has Clinton or Hussein Obama infringed?
Hopefully, you are aware of (and probably agree with) Bill Clinton's assault on 2nd Amendment Rights. If not, you must have a hellava vacation getaway place.
What you may not be aware of is his request to Janet Reno to initiate legislation that would allow for warrentless searches of federal housing projects "to look for guns". A Federal Judge blocked his initial executive order to do this. The Village Voice was the only liberal news media I can find that condemned his actions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
WOW! I just read thru this well referenced link. Clinton's transgressions were much worse than I thought.
Here is the federal housing rights violations.
"Warrantless Searches of Public Housing
In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional.[55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56]
The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that would give government agents the power to search their homes without warrants.[57]
The Clinton plan was roundly criticized by lawyers and columnists for giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of the tenants.[58] A New York Times editorial observed that the president had "missed the point" of Judge Anderson's ruling.[59] Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Abbe Smith rightly condemned the Clinton proposal as an open invitation to the police to "tear up" the homes of poor people.[60] "
I repeat, a well reference article!

As for Obama, see next post

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Oct 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what rights has Clinton or Hussein Obama infringed?
As for Obama, in the Demar Defense Bill, he voted twice to allow local govs to prosecute law abiding homeowners that used their own gun in their own home to stop a home invasion.
He advocated a law that would prevent gun shops from being located within 5 miles of a school or Park (which would eliminate most locations) while at the same time voting against increasing penalties for ACTUALLY FIRING A GUN on or near a school.
Gun shops within 5 miles and sex shops near schools.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/...
One of Obama's "present" votes was on 1999 legislation that would have required teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near
school grounds. He was among five African-American senators voting present.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/6...
There is plenty more dirt if you were interested in facts as opposed to political position.
Chuck, they all suck.
The easiest way to fix our politics is to never vote for an incumbent. No matter how much you like him. If they stay in DC long enough, they get tainted.
PLus, when they are running for re election, they are not doing the job I voted for.

Since: Oct 07

Greenville, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Oct 25, 2009
 
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully, you are aware of (and probably agree with) Bill Clinton's assault on 2nd Amendment Rights. If not, you must have a hellava vacation getaway place.
What you may not be aware of is his request to Janet Reno to initiate legislation that would allow for warrentless searches of federal housing projects "to look for guns". A Federal Judge blocked his initial executive order to do this. The Village Voice was the only liberal news media I can find that condemned his actions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
WOW! I just read thru this well referenced link. Clinton's transgressions were much worse than I thought.
Here is the federal housing rights violations.
"Warrantless Searches of Public Housing
In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional.[55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56]
The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that would give government agents the power to search their homes without warrants.[57]
The Clinton plan was roundly criticized by lawyers and columnists for giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of the tenants.[58] A New York Times editorial observed that the president had "missed the point" of Judge Anderson's ruling.[59] Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Abbe Smith rightly condemned the Clinton proposal as an open invitation to the police to "tear up" the homes of poor people.[60] "
I repeat, a well reference article!
As for Obama, see next post
When a person asks for govt assisstance, they can expect the govt. to intervene in ways they may not approve of.
Clinton should have insisted in a search notice before instituting such policy.

He only abided by the Second's intent.

Since: Oct 07

Greenville, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Oct 25, 2009
 
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
As for Obama, in the Demar Defense Bill, he voted twice to allow local govs to prosecute law abiding homeowners that used their own gun in their own home to stop a home invasion.
He advocated a law that would prevent gun shops from being located within 5 miles of a school or Park (which would eliminate most locations) while at the same time voting against increasing penalties for ACTUALLY FIRING A GUN on or near a school.
Gun shops within 5 miles and sex shops near schools.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/...
One of Obama's "present" votes was on 1999 legislation that would have required teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near
school grounds. He was among five African-American senators voting present.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/6...
There is plenty more dirt if you were interested in facts as opposed to political position.
Chuck, they all suck.
The easiest way to fix our politics is to never vote for an incumbent. No matter how much you like him. If they stay in DC long enough, they get tainted.
PLus, when they are running for re election, they are not doing the job I voted for.
Except for the sex shop law I agree with the above.

Demar violated the law of the town he lived in, which was written as the Second had intended("Well regulated militia..."). He also put his kids & neighbors at risk, unneccessarily. As the judge determined, he should have called police & stayed upstairs with the kids.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Oct 26, 2009
 
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the sex shop law I agree with the above.
Demar violated the law of the town he lived in, which was written as the Second had intended("Well regulated militia..."). He also put his kids & neighbors at risk, unneccessarily. As the judge determined, he should have called police & stayed upstairs with the kids.
Ahh. I believe the well regulated militia is only a preamble to the 2nd part. The right of the people. Just like in the first when it is said the "right of the people."

Plus, the local DA chose not to charge the man for his "justified gun use".

The town passed a law that I feel violated the citizens rights.

DO you think it is OK for a town to pass a law that violates any rights (not just ones you disagree with)?

As to the "danger" you say he put his family in, I challenge you to come up with one referenced occasion when a home owner caught or shot a thug that broke into his house, AND hurt a family member.
This is an example of what I complain about when you anti gun folks fantasize about dangers that have never happened.

Yet, you ridicule our fears when we complain about being disarmed by rights violations and we worry about events that have actually happened.
Demar is a great example.

The same thug broke into his house twice.
The incidence of thugs harming people after they have invaded a home is vastly higher than the incidence of people defending their home with a gun and hurting a family member.
Yet you worry he might have endangered his family.

I bet I can come up with 10 times as many examples of good gun use by law abiding citizens than you can come up with bad gun use by law abiding citizens.

As for calling the law, see Anthony Arambula. It seems that having a gun in the house is dangerosu if you corner a thug and call the police.

As for staying upstairs, apparently the thugs in your neighborhood are too lazy to walk up stairs.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away, and they have no legal obligation to protect the public.

Since: Oct 07

Greenville, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Nov 11, 2009
 
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh. I believe the well regulated militia is only a preamble to the 2nd part. The right of the people. Just like in the first when it is said the "right of the people."
Plus, the local DA chose not to charge the man for his "justified gun use".
The town passed a law that I feel violated the citizens rights.
DO you think it is OK for a town to pass a law that violates any rights (not just ones you disagree with)?
As to the "danger" you say he put his family in, I challenge you to come up with one referenced occasion when a home owner caught or shot a thug that broke into his house, AND hurt a family member.
This is an example of what I complain about when you anti gun folks fantasize about dangers that have never happened.
Yet, you ridicule our fears when we complain about being disarmed by rights violations and we worry about events that have actually happened.
Demar is a great example.
The same thug broke into his house twice.
The incidence of thugs harming people after they have invaded a home is vastly higher than the incidence of people defending their home with a gun and hurting a family member.
Yet you worry he might have endangered his family.
I bet I can come up with 10 times as many examples of good gun use by law abiding citizens than you can come up with bad gun use by law abiding citizens.
As for calling the law, see Anthony Arambula. It seems that having a gun in the house is dangerosu if you corner a thug and call the police.
As for staying upstairs, apparently the thugs in your neighborhood are too lazy to walk up stairs.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away, and they have no legal obligation to protect the public.
I am not anti-gun.
I am anti-nitwit.
Most gun owners are not trained or otherwise "well-regulated".
I have a .22 target pistol in my bedstand. SKS, 20 guage shotgun in the closet. No laws against it in my community. However, in communities who have passed certain & specific laws as the "well regulated" part of the Second establishes, then their citizens are obligated to abide by those laws.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Nov 11, 2009
 
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not anti-gun.
I am anti-nitwit.
Most gun owners are not trained or otherwise "well-regulated".
I have a .22 target pistol in my bedstand. SKS, 20 guage shotgun in the closet. No laws against it in my community. However, in communities who have passed certain & specific laws as the "well regulated" part of the Second establishes, then their citizens are obligated to abide by those laws.
Umm. It is "well regulated militia", not well regulated citizens ("the people"). The people are the folks that shall not be infringed.

Hey, it used to be community law that black people couldn't use white people water fountains.

Using your argument, there is nothing wrong with that.

It is always the folks in power that want to deny rights to the people.


And where does it say you have to be trained to exercise any of your rights.

You know as well as I how many idiots vote.

I agree, you should have training before handing guns. I just don't think it should be required. The incidence of idiots with guns causing mayhem is very low, and even if it was high, your perceived safety issues should never violate my actual rights.

However, I think the solution to "training" is easy to solve.

Like sex ed, gun safety and handling should be taught in the schools, since today's parents are woefully inadequate at that.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 49 of49
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Canton Discussions

Search the Canton Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
NC Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Car... (Oct '10) 46 min Victoria 54,827
issues with Appalachian Automotive (Dec '10) Jun 24 Bill in Waynesville 18
Avengers MC Jun 15 Just curious 1
Canton Jukebox (Jul '12) Jun 13 Bunny Rabbitt 12
Brown Numbered signs on I-40 (Apr '08) Jun '14 Lisa 25
Review: Mountain Top Appliance Service May '14 Brenda 1
Who do you support for Sheriff in North Carolin... (Oct '10) May '14 Bunk Buddy 33
•••
•••
•••
•••

Canton Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Canton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Canton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Canton
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••