2012's most important stories on faith

2012's most important stories on faith

There are 161 comments on the Tyler Morning Telegraph story from Dec 29, 2012, titled 2012's most important stories on faith. In it, Tyler Morning Telegraph reports that:

In 2012, a diversity of faiths were represented in the news on the national level ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tyler Morning Telegraph.

KMA

Benton, AR

#44 Dec 31, 2012
Okay, I'll give you the bottom line - but first, one more minor point - you say the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and not binding authority - yet you want to read something Jefferson wrote somewhere else into the Constitution, i.e. "separation of church and state." You arguments tend to often argue against yourself but you're too arrogant and self-assured to see that. Let me elaborate a little more before getting to the bottom line. You cannot rely on arguing that the framers intended this or that because much of what you are arguing has been added to the Constitution at the whim of whomever happened to be sitting on the Supreme Court. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion - this guarantees the right to whorship in the manner you choose, or not to whorship - nothing more. It doesn't guarantee that you will never be exposed to religion in any way shape or form. You may be annoyed by it, but there are things that annoy me all the time, I don't expect the government to ban them. Next, the establishment clause simply says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. That means what it says, CONGRESS will make no laws establishing religion. In other words, Congress will not establish a government church or mandate people practice a particular faith. That is all the Constitution says about religion. Anything more regarding pastors endorsing political candidates, nativity scenese, the 10 commandments in schools, etc. has been added by others, not the framers. So, those that put forth those things have no business arguing that the framers intended them. There is simply no basis in fact for that. I'm not saying that separation of church and state is a bad thing. I think its good, as long as it goes both ways. But, you only want it one way. You want to keep the church out of government but want the government to tax and regulate the church.

Okay, here's the bottom line: You throw around the phrase "religious liberty." Okay, let me ask you this - is liberty:
A. The government telling people what they can and cannot do; or
B. The government leaving people alone.

You seem to think it is A. You think "religious liberty" means the government taxing and regulating the church. I think liberty means less government control. Now, which one of us really believes in religious liberty?

And, yes, you are angry about something. You say you don't believe in God? Then why do you spend your time arguing about things like this? I don't believe in ghosts but I don't waste my time arguing with people who do. There is a reason why this issue is important to you. There is a reason why these things make you angry and why you put your time into thinking and arguing about them. If you really didn't believe, you wouldn't waste your time, would you? He'll be there for you when you're ready.
KMA

Benton, AR

#45 Dec 31, 2012
"I do get a bit PO'd at people who push unproven and conveniently unprovable faith beliefs as justification for public policy. "

See, here is a perfect example of how you argue against yourself. It is you who are pushing your beliefs on others. You want to force people to provide birth control and you want to force pastors to be silent. I haven't attempted to "push" anything on you. Its funny that someone who uses the words "religious liberty" so much labels someone who exercises their FREEDOM OF SPEECH in support of their excercise of their FREEDOM OF RELIGION as "pushy." I bet you'd really prefer a law that says no one can speak about religion in public, wouldn't you. After all, why should we allow people to be so "pushy." You come across as very intolerant. You really don't believe in "religious liberty." You just want to use the government as a tool to express your anger against religion. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#46 Dec 31, 2012
KMA wrote:
"I do get a bit PO'd at people who push unproven and conveniently unprovable faith beliefs as justification for public policy. "

See, here is a perfect example of how you argue against yourself. It is you who are pushing your beliefs on others. You want to force people to provide birth control and you want to force pastors to be silent.

I haven't attempted to "push" anything on you. Its funny that someone who uses the words "religious liberty" so much labels someone who exercises their FREEDOM OF SPEECH in support of their excercise of their FREEDOM OF RELIGION as "pushy." I bet you'd really prefer a law that says no one can speak about religion in public, wouldn't you?!

After all, why should we allow people to be so "pushy." You come across as very intolerant. You really don't believe in "religious liberty." You just want to use the government as a tool to express your anger against religion. I'm sorry you feel that way.
There is a belief, propagated by the engineered largesse of a socially active and socializing government, that government-operated programs, including universal healthcare, are the solution to most of our social problems.

It is an erroneus belief.

Once accepted by a majority of the voting public, this general belief and attitude is very difficult to turn around. It becomes self-perpetuating and the farther the society goes into permitting it, the greater the shortage of initiative and ingenuity and personal industrialism, to the end that the produced misery feeds upon and promotes even more government intervention.

It ends in a collapse. Margaret Thatcher said,“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

I know people who went to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet State. These went on a religious mission for two years, helping to rebuild Churches that had been torn down by the communist government. They helped to rebuild, brick by brick. One of the most interesting observations that these missionaries brought back was the fact that the Russian people had become so habitually dependent upon the government to provide for them that they could NOT make a decision to do anything on their own. They literally feared the social consequences of rising above the crowd and being seen as someone who did or does something for themselves. So, they simply agreed to live in a state of perpetual shortage and misery.

Under the previous way of communist regime, anyone who made decisions, other than the Party Bosses, was considered a trouble-maker and was treated as such.

It is a way of life that expresses the exact opposite of the guarantee of freedom and personal initiative and liberty of the minority interest that is created in our Constitution and Representative Republic.

Thatcher also correctly observed,“There are significant differences between the American and European version of capitalism. The American traditionally emphasizes the need for limited government, light regulations, low taxes and maximum labour-market flexibility. Its success has been shown above all in the ability to create new jobs, in which it is consistently more successful than Europe.”

Rev. Ken

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#47 Dec 31, 2012
Thanks Roboblogger!
Think Again

Farmville, NC

#48 Jan 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a belief, propagated by the engineered largesse of a socially active and socializing government, that government-operated programs, including universal healthcare, are the solution to most of our social problems.
It is an erroneus belief.
Once accepted by a majority of the voting public, this general belief and attitude is very difficult to turn around. It becomes self-perpetuating and the farther the society goes into permitting it, the greater the shortage of initiative and ingenuity and personal industrialism, to the end that the produced misery feeds upon and promotes even more government intervention.
It ends in a collapse. Margaret Thatcher said,“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
I know people who went to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet State. These went on a religious mission for two years, helping to rebuild Churches that had been torn down by the communist government. They helped to rebuild, brick by brick. One of the most interesting observations that these missionaries brought back was the fact that the Russian people had become so habitually dependent upon the government to provide for them that they could NOT make a decision to do anything on their own. They literally feared the social consequences of rising above the crowd and being seen as someone who did or does something for themselves. So, they simply agreed to live in a state of perpetual shortage and misery.
Under the previous way of communist regime, anyone who made decisions, other than the Party Bosses, was considered a trouble-maker and was treated as such.
It is a way of life that expresses the exact opposite of the guarantee of freedom and personal initiative and liberty of the minority interest that is created in our Constitution and Representative Republic.
Thatcher also correctly observed,“There are significant differences between the American and European version of capitalism. The American traditionally emphasizes the need for limited government, light regulations, low taxes and maximum labour-market flexibility. Its success has been shown above all in the ability to create new jobs, in which it is consistently more successful than Europe.”
Rev. Ken
You certainly don't know Holy Scripture but your politics are spot on. Perhaps there is hope yet for you.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#49 Jan 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
One of the most interesting observations that these missionaries brought back was the fact that the Russian people had become so habitually dependent upon the government to provide for them that they could NOT make a decision to do anything on their own. They literally feared the social consequences of rising above the crowd and being seen as someone who did or does something for themselves ...
Obama's "you didn't build that" applied via peer pressure.
Think Again

Farmville, NC

#50 Jan 1, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama's "you didn't build that" applied via peer pressure.
You didn't write this!
What

Aldrich, MO

#51 Jan 1, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate that.
It's also illegal for a church to do.
The little local 501(c)(3) of which I am a member isn't allowed to take our tax exemption and then go out and support political candidates. That's the rules we all follow. Churches shouldn't be able to do so, either.
When a church supports political candidates, parties, or partisan activities, all other tax payers are paying for it.
Unless the church pays taxes like everyone else. Then they can knock themselves out endorsing candidates until the cows come home.
Or until they go broke.
Where is that law in the Constitution? In fact there is not one, but to the contrary and you can figure that one out since you seem to have the answer!
What

Aldrich, MO

#52 Jan 1, 2013
KMA wrote:
"I do get a bit PO'd at people who push unproven and conveniently unprovable faith beliefs as justification for public policy. "
You must be refering to the teaching of father goose Darwin evolution in our public schools.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#53 Jan 1, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is that law in the Constitution? In fact there is not one, but to the contrary and you can figure that one out since you seem to have the answer!
According to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land includes the Constitution itself, AND federal laws, AND and treaties.

It's in the tax code, dummy, which is part of federal law. Namely, USC Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter F › Part I ›§ 501

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#54 Jan 1, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be refering to the teaching of father goose Darwin evolution in our public schools.
A William Jennings Bryan Tin-Foil Hat Award goes to you, along with all the other Bubbas who reject the basic foundation of all the life sciences.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#55 Jan 1, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is that law in the Constitution? In fact there is not one, but to the contrary and you can figure that one out since you seem to have the answer!
Right next to the part in the Constitution that says that churches don't have to pay taxes.
KMA

Benton, AR

#56 Jan 1, 2013
"dummy"

That kind of name calling shows you to be petty and arrogant. You think you're smarter than every one else - guess what? You're wrong. One day you'll see that. Hope you don't have to learn that lesson the hard way. You have a closed, intolerant mind. And, although you spout about "religious liberty," in reality, you are an intolerant, religious bigot. The type of liberty this country was founded on allows for diverse ideas - it should allow for open debate. Those who resort to name calling like the word "dummy" are simply showing that they lack the intellectual ability to carry on a debate. Grow up, get the chip off your shoulder, learn to act like an adult instead of spoiled, angry brat!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#57 Jan 1, 2013
KMA wrote:
"dummy"
That kind of name calling shows you to be petty and arrogant. You think you're smarter than every one else - guess what? You're wrong. One day you'll see that. Hope you don't have to learn that lesson the hard way. You have a closed, intolerant mind. And, although you spout about "religious liberty," in reality, you are an intolerant, religious bigot. The type of liberty this country was founded on allows for diverse ideas - it should allow for open debate. Those who resort to name calling like the word "dummy" are simply showing that they lack the intellectual ability to carry on a debate. Grow up, get the chip off your shoulder, learn to act like an adult instead of spoiled, angry brat!
"petty, arrogant, intolerant, bigot, brat..."

You wouldn't want to be name-calling, now would you?

For the record, my "intolerant mind" believes:

There is no evidence for the existence of any gods.

Evolution is the foundation of the life sciences.

I support the notion that church ministers are free to advocate for political candidates all they want -- so long as they pay taxes like any other political organization.

Churches that support or oppose political candidates have no right claiming a tax exemption and being subsidized by all other taxpayers.

The Affordable Care Act doesn't require employers to purchase or pay for insurance for birth control or abortion services.

There is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are irrational, illogical, or based on ignorance, fear, animus, or religious superstition or myth.
KMA

Benton, AR

#58 Jan 1, 2013
So, to sum up: Any one who doesn't agree with everything you say is " irrational, illogical, or based on ignorance, fear, animus, or religious superstition or myth."

My, what is must be like to live in your world!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#59 Jan 1, 2013
KMA wrote:
So, to sum up: Any one who doesn't agree with everything you say is " irrational, illogical, or based on ignorance, fear, animus, or religious superstition or myth."
Unless they have a rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage. So far, no one has come up with one. Certainly, you haven't.

So what does that make you -- irrational, illogical, ignorant, fearful, hateful, or superstitious? Or more than one?
KMA wrote:
My, what is must be like to live in your world!
The world of reality is so much better than the world of superstition, myth, and delusion. Someday, you should join us.
KMA

Benton, AR

#60 Jan 1, 2013
Let's just see what you think when you've lived a few more years. I thought I knew everything at 18 too.
KMA

Benton, AR

#61 Jan 1, 2013
Once you get out of your parent's basement and get your first real job, you'll begin to see what the world is really all about.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#62 Jan 1, 2013
KMA wrote:
Let's just see what you think when you've lived a few more years. I thought I knew everything at 18 too.
I didn't think you had a rational argument against allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage.

Thanks for confirming that!
KMA

Benton, AR

#63 Jan 1, 2013
Now you're arguing with yourself. I haven't said a thing about gay marriage, one way or the other.

But, since you asked - my opinion (which I'm sure you will label as dumb, irrational, etc) is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I would think that you would agree. After all, marriage is a religious practice. What about "separation of church and state?" Should the government be giving licenses to people for a religious practice? Furthermore, if its none of the governments business who someone marries, then get the government out of it altogether.

But, again we've come back to liberty vs. totalitarianism. I'll leave you to ponder that on your own.

Continue to feel free to argue with yourself. After all, no one can match your intellect but you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 7 min nhjeff 5,745
News Can Rick Santorum escape his past? 7 min Pat Robertson s F... 35
News The Christian owners of a bakery found to have ... 10 min Pat Robertson s F... 27
News McCrory to veto gay marriage objection bill 15 min Sir Andrew 6
News Arkansas Justices Reject New Arguments in Gay M... 19 min Sir Andrew 6
News Gay Hotelier Who Hosted Ted Cruz Meeting Also D... 19 min nhjeff 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 22 min NoahLovesU 21,813
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 2 hr Pat Robertson s F... 348
News Ireland same-sex marriage 3 hr woodtick57 359
Are the mods fair and balanced? 9 hr Friend of Poof1 842
More from around the web