PDA

View Full Version : Censoring the Bible? It Could Happen in COLORADO



megimoo
08-06-2008, 05:24 PM
Christian leaders gathered in Denver Tuesday in opposition to an anti-Christian censorship law that could open the door to censoring the Bible.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed the state bill, SB 200, which aims at silencing all publications that discriminate against homosexuality.

"Section 8 of Senate Bill 200 is a wide open door for any judge to censor anything that condemns homosexuality, including Scripture," Colorado State Rep.

Kevin Lundberg said. Many Christians fear that one day the Bible will be considered illegal in America.

"I do believe that the Bible is banned, under the plain language of this new statute," Steve Crampton, general counsel of the pro-family Liberty Counsel, said, indicating he believes that day is already here.

Section 8 reads, "No person, being the owner. agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation. shall publish. distribute, give away.

except as provided in this section, any communication. book, pamphlet, writing. or advertisement of any kind. intended or calculated to discriminate. against. sexual orientation, marital status (which) is unwelcome."

It is titled, "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden."


http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/402050.aspx

The Night Owl
08-06-2008, 06:14 PM
Consider the source.

Sonnabend
08-06-2008, 06:23 PM
Consider the source.

Coming from you, always.

MrsSmith
08-06-2008, 06:47 PM
SECTION 8. 24-34-701, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:
24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No
person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent,
or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement,
directly or indirectly, by himself or herself or through another person shall
publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way,
manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this
section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book,
pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature,
or description which THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or
actually discriminates against any disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry or against any of
the members thereof in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to
furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or
tuition or any accommodation, right, privilege, advantage, or convenience
offered to or enjoyed by the general public or which states that any of the
accommodations, rights, privileges, advantages, or conveniences of any such place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement shall or will be refused, withheld from, or denied to any person or class of persons on account of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry or that the patronage, custom, presence,
frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging at such place by any person or
class of persons belonging to or purporting to be of any particular disability,
race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin,
or ancestry is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or
solicited.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?open&file=200_enr.pdf

It makes it illegal to publish anything that mentions sexual orientation in an objectionable manner.

MrsSmith
08-06-2008, 06:48 PM
Consider the source.

Your prejudice blinds you to the truth.

FlaGator
08-06-2008, 09:40 PM
Your prejudice blinds you to the truth.

You can't take a blind man to a museum and then get upset with them because they can't appreciate the art.

Ranger Rick
08-06-2008, 09:58 PM
It is going to get interesting when they apply this to the Quaran.

wilbur
08-06-2008, 11:52 PM
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?open&file=200_enr.pdf

It makes it illegal to publish anything that mentions sexual orientation in an objectionable manner.

Actually, if you look at the intent of the bill.. its not precisely aimed at sexual orientation as this alarmist article claims, nor is it strictly for publishing. It seems this bill was mostly aimed at public displays, such as hotel signs and the like. Not that I agree with the bill mind you...

Either way, I wouldnt support this bill, it does look like its rife with all kinds of unintended consequences, and just poorly put together. Not to mention it seems unconstitutional on its face..

I know you guys love to be martyrs but this doesnt look like your chance... Should be a good opportunity to drum up some more fear that the govco is gonna take your bible away, and it looks like its well underway.

Theophilus
08-06-2008, 11:54 PM
Bad law. I can't believe they would attempt to suppress speech like this.

jinxmchue
08-07-2008, 12:25 AM
Consider the source.

Yeah, that's what they said in Canada not too long ago. Now look what's happened up there. They've got a human rights tribunal/inquisition/whatever to silence anyone that does not fall lock-step in with the leftists.

jinxmchue
08-07-2008, 12:26 AM
Bad law. I can't believe they would attempt to suppress speech like this.

If it happened in Canada, it will eventually happen here. Maybe not now, but someday.

FlaGator
08-07-2008, 06:49 AM
Actually, if you look at the intent of the bill.. its not precisely aimed at sexual orientation as this alarmist article claims, nor is it strictly for publishing. It seems this bill was mostly aimed at public displays, such as hotel signs and the like. Not that I agree with the bill mind you...

Either way, I wouldnt support this bill, it does look like its rife with all kinds of unintended consequences, and just poorly put together. Not to mention it seems unconstitutional on its face..

I know you guys love to be martyrs but this doesnt look like your chance... Should be a good opportunity to drum up some more fear that the govco is gonna take your bible away, and it looks like its well underway.

But it does seem to be a law restricting free speech and would probably not pass a review by the Supreme Court. On another note, you seem to have a real dislike of Christianity that tends to cloud your judgement sometimes. Your sarcasm (at least I hope that it is sarcasm) to Mrs Smith tends to reveal a deep seated dislike of something you don't understand. Similar to the dislike of homosexuals that you like to paint all Christians with. Is there a difference between your view of Christians and the Christian view of homosexuality?

The Night Owl
08-07-2008, 12:50 PM
Your prejudice blinds you to the truth.

Hey, if you want to get your information from a website which is owned by a religious crackpot and charlatan who once declared that "the Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today" and that the 9/11 attacks were the result of God lifting a veil of protection on the US, then be my guest, but don't expect me to take you seriously.

The Night Owl
08-07-2008, 12:53 PM
But it does seem to be a law restricting free speech and would probably not pass a review by the Supreme Court. On another note, you seem to have a real dislike of Christianity that tends to cloud your judgement sometimes. Your sarcasm (at least I hope that it is sarcasm) to Mrs Smith tends to reveal a deep seated dislike of something you don't understand. Similar to the dislike of homosexuals that you like to paint all Christians with. Is there a difference between your view of Christians and the Christian view of homosexuality?

Just because someone dislikes something doesn't mean that person can't be objective about it.

FlaGator
08-07-2008, 02:35 PM
Just because someone dislikes something doesn't mean that person can't be objective about it.

It doesn't meant that they are free of bias either.

The Night Owl
08-07-2008, 02:46 PM
It doesn't meant that they are free of bias either.

Someone being biased in favor of something or against something doesn't necessarily make that person wrong.

FlaGator
08-07-2008, 02:53 PM
Someone being biased in favor of something or against something doesn't necessarily make that person wrong.

Doesn't make them right either.

Molon Labe
08-07-2008, 02:55 PM
Consider the source.

Why not cross reference it. That way you can avoid the MSM and the CBN

The language looks pretty clear and pretty alarming

Theophilus
08-07-2008, 03:19 PM
I love the Colorado legislature. They attempted to pass a bill into law that solves a problem that they havenít seen evidence of. The entire effort was being driven by the GLBT lobby and thankfully they failed again.

NonConformist
08-07-2008, 03:29 PM
Its already been censored by the Catholic church, there are so many missing pieces they must have took out IMO

The Night Owl
08-07-2008, 04:10 PM
Doesn't make them right either.

True, but just so you know... I am always right.

:D

Rebel Yell
08-07-2008, 04:34 PM
True, but just so you know... I am always right.

:D

And you're always here. in any thread you think you can bash religion in. God's very own stalker, how sweet.

Rebel Yell
08-07-2008, 04:35 PM
TNO, on a side note. What is your avatar from? That has been bugging the shit outta me. I know what it's from, but can't pull it from my memory.

wilbur
08-07-2008, 04:50 PM
But it does seem to be a law restricting free speech and would probably not pass a review by the Supreme Court. On another note, you seem to have a real dislike of Christianity that tends to cloud your judgement sometimes.


I don't deny I'm not free of angst towards the church (or just religion in general) and it gets the better of me sometimes. And in particular, certain issues push my buttons. What I perceive as a perpetual "crying wolf" on the part of the religious right, and touching on the issue of homosexuality (this thread has both). I personally am happily married to a lovely woman (sorry to disappoint you Megimoo), but many of my very best friends are gay, so there is a personal factor in it here. And believe me when I say, almost all the commentary all over this board on this topic wreaks of that stereotypical false (or what I hope is false) caricature of conservatism (dumb, xenophobic, faith to a fault). I mean... people around here really try hard to live up to the lefts expectations. It's one of the few things that stirs me out of lurker mode and compels me to post.

All we gotta do is figure a way to tie this thread into the evolution vs creationism debate and you'll really see me get 'colorful';)

Theophilus
08-07-2008, 05:44 PM
And you're always here. in any thread you think you can bash religion in. God's very own stalker, how sweet.

It would seem. Without God there would be no TNO.

wilbur
08-07-2008, 06:15 PM
TNO, on a side note. What is your avatar from? That has been bugging the shit outta me. I know what it's from, but can't pull it from my memory.

LOST the tv show

megimoo
08-07-2008, 09:30 PM
TNO, on a side note. What is your avatar from? That has been bugging the shit outta me. I know what it's from, but can't pull it from my memory.
An episode of star trek,the old version with Kirk !

FlaGator
08-08-2008, 08:07 AM
I don't deny I'm not free of angst towards the church (or just religion in general) and it gets the better of me sometimes. And in particular, certain issues push my buttons. What I perceive as a perpetual "crying wolf" on the part of the religious right, and touching on the issue of homosexuality (this thread has both). I personally am happily married to a lovely woman (sorry to disappoint you Megimoo), but many of my very best friends are gay, so there is a personal factor in it here. And believe me when I say, almost all the commentary all over this board on this topic wreaks of that stereotypical false (or what I hope is false) caricature of conservatism (dumb, xenophobic, faith to a fault). I mean... people around here really try hard to live up to the lefts expectations. It's one of the few things that stirs me out of lurker mode and compels me to post.

All we gotta do is figure a way to tie this thread into the evolution vs creationism debate and you'll really see me get 'colorful';)

The gay and lesbian movement is guilty of the same crying wolf. Every time someone makes a statement that is negative of homosexual behavior they are accused of being "homophobes" and "gay bashers". To many in the gay and lesbian movement disagreement with them is to hate them. I don't agree with their life style but I don't hate them either. To each his own is my point of view, but as the religious right is accused of pushing their morals down the throats of non-believers, gays seem to be guilty of the same thing. They want to legislate their view of morality just like the far religious right tries to do. As you know, I'm about as devout a believer as one can be but I understand that there is the world and the world can do as the world will do. Make same sex marriage legal if it pleases society, but don’t force the Church to bless these unions if the Church finds them immoral. Believers don't have to tolerate having their beliefs ruled as illegal, or their values dictated to them because the gay movement wants to join a group of people who find their lifestyles immoral. That itself is mind boggling to me.

Molon Labe
08-08-2008, 09:42 AM
The gay and lesbian movement is guilty of the same crying wolf. Every time someone makes a statement that in negative of homosexual behavior they are accused of being "homophobes" and "gay bashers". To many in the gay and lesbian movement disagreement with them is to hate them. I don't agree with their life style but I don't hate them either. To each his own is my point of view, but as the religious right is accused of pushing their morals down the throats of non-believers, gays seem to be guilty of the same thing. They want to legislate their view of morality just like the far religious right tries to do. As you know, I'm about as devout a believer as one can be but I understand that there is the world and the world can do as the world will do. Make same sex marriage legal if it pleases society, but donít force the Church to bless these unions if the Church finds them immoral. Believers don't have to tolerate having their beliefs ruled as illegal, or their values dictated to them because the gay movement wants to join a group of people who find their lifestyles immoral. That itself is mind boggling to me.

I read a really good article recently where the pundit argued that as Christians, we should always fight against the moral issue of gay marriage, but to look at it this way..... If it was not a state sanctioned event and one that was carried out by the church this wouldn't be as much an issue because if gay marriage isn't really marriage in God's eyes then it's no more marriage because the state says it is.
This was probably the best idea about the subject I've read...but I haven't read them all. Links below.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=640

FlaGator
08-08-2008, 10:14 AM
I read a really good article recently where the pundit argued that as Christians, we should always fight against the moral issue of gay marriage, but to look at it this way..... If it was not a state sanctioned event and one that was carried out by the church this wouldn't be as much an issue because if gay marriage isn't really marriage in God's eyes then it's no more marriage because the state says it is.
This was probably the best idea about the subject I've read...but I haven't read them all. Links below.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=640

Christ tells us to be in the world and not of the world so I try to establish a philosophical wall between the two. The way I read Christ's commands in the Gospel, he was establishing the way that Christians are expected to live and behave but that we shouldn't hold non believers to the same standard because they are not capable of living those standards.

Molon Labe
08-08-2008, 10:27 AM
Christ tells us to be in the world and not of the world so I try to establish a philosophical wall between the two. The way I read Christ's commands in the Gospel, he was establishing the way that Christians are expected to live and behave but that we shouldn't hold non believers to the same standard because they are not capable of living those standards.

True...Even more of a reason for me not to suggest state legislation of anything in my faith. I was not a big supporter of the constitutional ban on same sex marriage...but it has more to do with your statement above and believing that my family and church are the responsible parties for instilling those values. If someone chooses not to follow, then I don't want it criminalized. I think it's better you pray for them and let them go...with an occasional gentle nudge (or swift kick) of the truth from time to time. :D

When the rich man told Jesus "no thanks" He wasn't arrested. The Bible doesn't say what happened, but I'd say it's safe to presume that Jesus probably prayed for the man.

FlaGator
08-08-2008, 11:12 AM
True...Even more of a reason for me not to suggest state legislation of anything in my faith. I was not a big supporter of the constitutional ban on same sex marriage...but it has more to do with your statement above and believing that my family and church are the responsible parties for instilling those values. If someone chooses not to follow, then I don't want it criminalized. I think it's better you pray for them and let them go...with an occasional gentle nudge (or swift kick) of the truth from time to time. :D

When the rich man told Jesus "no thanks" He wasn't arrested. The Bible doesn't say what happened, but I'd say it's safe to presume that Jesus probably prayed for the man.

I have found that prayer and peaceful co-existence does more to spread the message of Gospel than any argument that I can put forth. Of course I'll debate my beliefs and defend my faith but God will do what I cannot and that is change the heart of an unbeliever. Like you, I don't want my morals and values legislated, I want them accepted and practiced because they appeal to people. I firmly believe that is what Christ wanted and is the underlying principle when he told the disciples to preach the gospel to the towns and villages and if the town did not want to listen then they were to shake the dust from their sandals and go to the next town.

Theophilus
08-08-2008, 12:50 PM
I have found that prayer and peaceful co-existence does more to spread the message of Gospel than any argument that I can put forth. Of course I'll debate my beliefs and defend my faith but God will do what I cannot and that is change the heart of an unbeliever. Like you, I don't want my morals and values legislated, I want them accepted and practiced because they appeal to people. I firmly believe that is what Christ wanted and is the underlying principle when he told the disciples to preach the gospel to the towns and villages and if the town did not want to listen then they were to shake the dust from their sandals and go to the next town.

Excellent posts. I've never been an advocate for better laws, when all we really need are better men.

From Hebrews "For the law made nothing perfect, but the introduction of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh to God. ...

noonwitch
08-08-2008, 01:14 PM
I have found that prayer and peaceful co-existence does more to spread the message of Gospel than any argument that I can put forth. Of course I'll debate my beliefs and defend my faith but God will do what I cannot and that is change the heart of an unbeliever. Like you, I don't want my morals and values legislated, I want them accepted and practiced because they appeal to people. I firmly believe that is what Christ wanted and is the underlying principle when he told the disciples to preach the gospel to the towns and villages and if the town did not want to listen then they were to shake the dust from their sandals and go to the next town.


I totally respect that.

MrsSmith
08-08-2008, 07:31 PM
Hey, if you want to get your information from a website which is owned by a religious crackpot and charlatan who once declared that "the Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today" and that the 9/11 attacks were the result of God lifting a veil of protection on the US, then be my guest, but don't expect me to take you seriously.



Quote:
SECTION 8. 24-34-701, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:
24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No
person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent,
or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement,
directly or indirectly, by himself or herself or through another person shall
publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way,
manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this
section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book,
pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature,
or description which THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or
actually discriminates against any disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry or against any of
the members thereof in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to
furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or
tuition or any accommodation, right, privilege, advantage, or convenience
offered to or enjoyed by the general public or which states that any of the
accommodations, rights, privileges, advantages, or conveniences of any such place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement shall or will be refused, withheld from, or denied to any person or class of persons on account of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry or that the patronage, custom, presence,
frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging at such place by any person or
class of persons belonging to or purporting to be of any particular disability,
race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin,
or ancestry is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or
solicited.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...le=200_enr.pdf


ROFL! You swallowed your foot that time, genius. :D:D:D

MrsSmith
08-08-2008, 07:37 PM
Actually, if you look at the intent of the bill.. its not precisely aimed at sexual orientation as this alarmist article claims, nor is it strictly for publishing. It seems this bill was mostly aimed at public displays, such as hotel signs and the like. Not that I agree with the bill mind you...

Either way, I wouldnt support this bill, it does look like its rife with all kinds of unintended consequences, and just poorly put together. Not to mention it seems unconstitutional on its face..

I know you guys love to be martyrs but this doesnt look like your chance... Should be a good opportunity to drum up some more fear that the govco is gonna take your bible away, and it looks like its well underway.

Yeah, that's why they specifically said "any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description," because they really meant things like hotel signs. :rolleyes:

But you know us fundies...just hanging out, waiting to be martyrs. (Never mind the simple fact that if they manage to put even more limits on free speech, those limits will bite all Americans eventually.)

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 12:01 AM
ROFL! You swallowed your foot that time, genius. :D:D:D

I am a master of putting my foot in my mouth but my foot got nowhere near my mouth in this thread.

You criticized my response to the CBN piece and so I responded to your criticism by reminding you of some of the stupid things Pat Robertson has said. Do you or don't you agree that Pat Robertson is a religious crackpot and a charlatan?

Constitutionally Speaking
08-09-2008, 08:04 AM
Just because someone dislikes something doesn't mean that person can't be objective about it.

And yet you dismissed this website for EXACTLY that same reason!!! :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
08-09-2008, 11:27 AM
And yet you dismissed this website for EXACTLY that same reason!!! :rolleyes:

I dismiss the CBN site because it is owned by a madman.

wilbur
08-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Yeah, that's why they specifically said "any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description," because they really meant things like hotel signs. :rolleyes:

But you know us fundies...just hanging out, waiting to be martyrs. (Never mind the simple fact that if they manage to put even more limits on free speech, those limits will bite all Americans eventually.)

I didnt say this bill was good. I said it was bad. I honestly couldnt see this thing ever getting by any kind of judicial review at all. In other words, the first hint of a lawsuit about this bill would get it thrown out even if it managed to somehow pass. I don't think its something to worry about... the reactions it has stirred up are more interesting to me.

What I am saying is this bill does not target religious books, but it has somehow been turned into a religious issue. There's nothing in this bill that targets the Bible by name or even evidence that it does so by intent.

What I find the most humorous about this whole thing though, is apparently everyone's in agreement the Bible is a 'discriminatory text' by contemporary standards. ;)

FlaGator
08-09-2008, 12:24 PM
I didnt say this bill was good. I said it was bad. I honestly couldnt see this thing ever getting by any kind of judicial review at all. In other words, the first hint of a lawsuit about this bill would get it thrown out even if it managed to somehow pass. I don't think its something to worry about... the reactions it has stirred up are more interesting to me.

What I am saying is this bill does not target religious books, but it has somehow been turned into a religious issue. There's nothing in this bill that targets the Bible by name or even evidence that it does so by intent.

What I find the most humorous about this whole thing though, is apparently everyone's in agreement the Bible is a 'discriminatory text' by contemporary standards. ;)

Wonder if the law said it was banning texts that promoted ideas concerning "micro changes in life over time". How would you interpret that?

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 12:34 PM
I am a master of putting my foot in my mouth but my foot got nowhere near my mouth in this thread.

You criticized my response to the CBN piece and so I responded to your criticism by reminding you of some of the stupid things Pat Robertson has said. Do you or don't you agree that Pat Robertson is a religious crackpot and a charlatan?

Honestly, I have never paid any attention to Pat Robertson one way or another. You, on the other handed, responded:
Hey, if you want to get your information from a website which is owned by a religious crackpot and charlatan who once declared that "the Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today" and that the 9/11 attacks were the result of God lifting a veil of protection on the US, then be my guest, but don't expect me to take you seriously.
after I'd posted the actual text of the bill from the state site. :D:D

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 12:40 PM
I didnt say this bill was good. I said it was bad. I honestly couldnt see this thing ever getting by any kind of judicial review at all. In other words, the first hint of a lawsuit about this bill would get it thrown out even if it managed to somehow pass. I don't think its something to worry about... the reactions it has stirred up are more interesting to me.

What I am saying is this bill does not target religious books, but it has somehow been turned into a religious issue. There's nothing in this bill that targets the Bible by name or even evidence that it does so by intent.

What I find the most humorous about this whole thing though, is apparently everyone's in agreement the Bible is a 'discriminatory text' by contemporary standards. ;)

The bill was signed by the governor, so there is no "somehow" about it passing. I would most certainly hope that judicial review would see it thrown out, but chances are a Christian legal group will have to spend a lot of time and money getting that done.

As for the Bible, it has always named sin as sin. It's just too bad that contemporary standards are so low that this is a problem for some people. Of course, for those who are sure that we're all decendants of pond scum, I guess it's understandable that they don't mind if most act that way.

wilbur
08-09-2008, 03:27 PM
The bill was signed by the governor, so there is no "somehow" about it passing. I would most certainly hope that judicial review would see it thrown out, but chances are a Christian legal group will have to spend a lot of time and money getting that done.

As for the Bible, it has always named sin as sin. It's just too bad that contemporary standards are so low that this is a problem for some people. Of course, for those who are sure that we're all decendants of pond scum, I guess it's understandable that they don't mind if most act that way.

Its your ideology that says if we share a common ancestors with other life that we ought to behave like animals, not mine. That is what you say, not I.

MrsSmith
08-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Its your ideology that says if we share a common ancestors with other life that we ought to behave like animals, not mine. That is what you say, not I.
My ideology says that all people are imperfect, everyone sins, and each one has the option to choose the free gift of salvation and forgiveness Jesus provides. This is from that "discriminatory text" you don't like...the one that Colorado has just made illegal to publish - for now.

wilbur
08-10-2008, 12:57 AM
Wonder if the law said it was banning texts that promoted ideas concerning "micro changes in life over time". How would you interpret that?

I know what your trying specific attack on the Bible.to say here, but the comparison doesnt make much sense to me.

Thats obviously targeted towards a pet topic of mine;). But I don't think a bill thats language is basically just a carpet bombing of all the "trendy" anti-discrimination rhetoric of today is evidence that the intent is to censor the Bible.

wilbur
08-10-2008, 01:01 AM
My ideology says that all people are imperfect, everyone sins, and each one has the option to choose the free gift of salvation and forgiveness Jesus provides. This is from that "discriminatory text" you don't like...the one that Colorado has just made illegal to publish - for now.

And it also seems to say that unless God created humans and the world in the exact method that you prefer, humanity has license to behave like animals. You said as much a couple posts ago with your pond scum comment. Those are your notions, not mine... personally thats quite puzzling to me.

FlaGator
08-10-2008, 07:14 AM
I know what your trying specific attack on the Bible.to say here, but the comparison doesnt make much sense to me.

Thats obviously targeted towards a pet topic of mine;). But I don't think a bill thats language is basically just a carpet bombing of all the "trendy" anti-discrimination rhetoric of today is evidence that the intent is to censor the Bible.

My point was just becaused the bill doesn't specifically target the book in question doesn't mean that the book will not fall under the jurisdiction of the bill. In my example I was targeting any book that mentioned evolution with out picking on a specific text.

MrsSmith
08-10-2008, 02:45 PM
And it also seems to say that unless God created humans and the world in the exact method that you prefer, humanity has license to behave like animals. You said as much a couple posts ago with your pond scum comment. Those are your notions, not mine... personally thats quite puzzling to me.

As God did create humans in His own image, there are no notions that humans have license to act like animals. Most certainly, not mine. I did say that those who believe we decended from pond scum probably don't care if we act like it, which has nothing to do with "my notions." :D In point of fact, that argument is most commonly used by the homosexual movement, at this time...all their arguments that other species sometimes choose same-sex partners, which makes their choices just "natural." Perhaps you've mixed up 2 of your threads?

wilbur
08-10-2008, 09:51 PM
As God did create humans in His own image, there are no notions that humans have license to act like animals. Most certainly, not mine. I did say that those who believe we decended from pond scum probably don't care if we act like it, which has nothing to do with "my notions." :D In point of fact, that argument is most commonly used by the homosexual movement, at this time...all their arguments that other species sometimes choose same-sex partners, which makes their choices just "natural." Perhaps you've mixed up 2 of your threads?

Actually if you look at the history of the situation, it was the people in your camp who used the "it goes against nature" argument, and repeatedly brought up the point "you don't see homosexuality in nature". Well, this meme took root before any of your vacant minded friends even bothered to check their facts (how embarrassing)... if someone had even bothered to simply observe a typical male dog humping another, the dots might have connected. The response from the other side was simply to point out that, yes, quite plainly and painfully obviously to even the least self aware knuckle draggers among us, that homosexual behavior does actually occur in nature and quite pointedly made hordes of their opposition look like fools.

So the "its natural" argument was simply a reaction to the "its not natural, and therefore evil/bad/etc" argument. It never was any kind of justification.

But lets not forget... all that started because the anti-homosexuality side said we should imitate nature and not be homosexual. Then interestingly enough, we have some of them saying we can't have evolution because people will just act like animals! Which is it? Should we imitate animals or shouldnt we? ;)

AlmostThere
08-11-2008, 10:17 PM
Actually, if you look at the intent of the bill.. its not precisely aimed at sexual orientation as this alarmist article claims, nor is it strictly for publishing. It seems this bill was mostly aimed at public displays, such as hotel signs and the like. Not that I agree with the bill mind you...

Either way, I wouldnt support this bill, it does look like its rife with all kinds of unintended consequences, and just poorly put together. Not to mention it seems unconstitutional on its face..

I know you guys love to be martyrs but this doesnt look like your chance... Should be a good opportunity to drum up some more fear that the govco is gonna take your bible away, and it looks like its well underway.
Back in the 80's I worked at a couple hotels. One a 5 diamond, the other a 4 diamond. One thing I noticed real quick, was the large number of gays working at both. High-end hotels and upscale restaurants are quite likely to have a substantial gay workforce.

Goldwater
08-11-2008, 11:24 PM
Back in the 80's I worked at a couple hotels. One a 5 diamond, the other a 4 diamond. One thing I noticed real quick, was the large number of gays working at both. High-end hotels and upscale restaurants are quite likely to have a substantial gay workforce.

Gays keep things clean girlfriend!