Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who had one bullet he had to keep in his pocket. It wouldn’t work well.today. BTW my grandmother was the stunt woman for Aunt B. When you see Aunt B jumping over a fence that’s my grandmotherSheriff Taylor didn't carry a gun either, he left the shooting iron to Deputy Fife.
Does everyone include non citizens?I want EVERYONE to vote, (okay some are going to be morally suspect, or worse, I’ll grant you, but being astute politically has nothing to do with being a sociopathic criminal).
Theres plenty apart from the ones that Ana and I listed which are the obvious ones. The evdience shows that having a mother and father is better for kids. Especially having a father in light of the problems facing young males. Secular ideology claims it doesn't matter if kids don't have both parents or a father because theres no difference between male and female. A female can be the father aned a male can be the mother.Was it no evidence or little evidence? You seem to have changed your argument. You need to pick one. Let me know which.
And while you're deciding that, just be aware that not all evidence is valid. Not all facts are correct. We're able to make a decision on this because the evidence and the facts are presented. That is the critical point you seem not to understand. Rather than say 'it is written' we are given the reasons for a decision so we can decide if it's the correct one.
I thought it best to explain that because I have a feeling you're thinking about using examples where evidence is given with which you disagree. Please don't waste our time doing that.
You keep saying 'no evidence' despite the evidence. As I said, just because you you don't agree with something doesn't mean it magically doesn't exist.Its the same for some of the ideological beliefs taught in State schools and Universities regarding sex, gender and race. There is no evdience for them and yet they underpin the curriculum. Belief doesn't have to be limited to traditional religion to be taught as fact in education.
You must have excelled at dodgeball.For disenfranchising sections of the electorate? No, I don't.
And evidence that says that children with same sex parents do just fine if not better than the average. Evidence is what is required. Not simply 'it is written.' You can't say 'evidence shows X' if you're trying to say that evidence doesn't matter.Theres plenty apart from the ones that Ana and I listed which are the obvious ones. The evdience shows that having a mother and father is better for kids.
If secularism is an alternative to religion then its a religion itself. It cannot be an alternative unless it offers an alternative to religious belief. Secularism cannot remain neutral when it comes to belief because its by nature that we attach beliefs to how we govern be it via communism (denying freedoms) which is about morality or by capitalism (value through private ownership) or even democracy (upholding freedoms).Sigh... How many times do we have to go over this.
This is just wrong. Secular is the alternative to religious in institutions, etc.
Yes it is. If the State rejects Christianity or any belief for that matter from the public square then that is undemocractic. If it then acts antangonistically towards a certain belief then its actively denying it.It is not about "rejecting God" or any such things.
Thats an unreal view of things. You cannot seperate the job description from the ethical codes of conduct. In fact I would say that just as much importance goes into the ethical aspect such as DEI in all professions than the actual practical knowledge of doing the job. You cannot seperate the two just like you cannot seperate the States beliefs and ideology from governance.Some things are inherently secular. Take for example plumbing. Is plumbing based on religion? No. Therefore it is a secular profession and economic activity. Plumbing businesses are inherently secular. It's not about whether a specific plumber is religious or not, it is still secular.
That seems unreal. In some ways entire economic ideas are protested as immoral. capitalism is protested against by most Leftis and Marxist like its the root of all evils. Realistically I don't think we can seperate these things ethically. Even the Welfare State a bastian of Democrates, Labor aned socialists is steeped in morals. Any government that tries to govern by the cold facts of economics will be condemned by all sides.Most economic activities are inherently secular, with the exceptions being the businesses that [specifically cater to religious views like Christian book stores. (Edited to finish sentence. Ooops.)]
It does in the sense that secular means the public square should not promote one belief over another but rather be free of belief and religion. A secular government is religious and belief free. But if they promote a particular belief or deny a religion then they are no longer secular but aligning with a belief.No it doesn't. See above.
You have completely missed the point. Its not fearing being a minority, it is fearing that our long held principles such as free speech, freedom of religion and conscience are being denied. Thats not just a fear Christians should worry about but something we all should be concerned about. It seems that what is happening now is undoing these long help truth principles rather than creating some better society.What is it you fear about being in the minority? Does the society that was built when your religion was in the majority not protect religious minorities adequately.
Not so. I want all my grandkids to vote.I don't want my grandkids voting. So they're included in the exceptions with which nobody disagrees. Including you.
So lets consider the logic. Are you saying that a child doesn't need a mother or father. That the evdience doesn't show their importance for development. Even logic shows that any idea that SS parenting is better is unreal. Otherwise why on earth is there such a thing as a mother and father when they can easily be replaced by the same sex. It means there is nothing about the unique role of a mother and father than makes a difference to a child.And evidence that says that children with same sex parents do just fine if not better than the average. Evidence is what is required. Not simply 'it is written.' You can't say 'evidence shows X' if you're trying to say that evidence doesn't matter.
Please try harder to stay on topic.
If you want to discuss the problem, start a thread about it. Your solution to it means disenfranchising voters, which is somewhat relevant to this thread. But there is no support for doing that.You must have excelled at dodgeball.
Unwilling to recognize the real problem, in a convoluted way, you (and Hans) wish to characterize the solution as the problem. But neither have an alternate solution to offer for the real problem.
Completely, totally and utterley irrelevant to the question posed in the op. Again, please try to stay on topic.So lets consider the logic. Are you saying that a child doesn't need a mother or father.
Of course they are all relevant examples, contrary to your claim., The rights of citizens are not absolute and the government can and does restrict them. Likewise, voting is not a universal right but a legal privilege. And that privilege is amendable.But none of those things are relevant to only those that you term unequal. Which is the point we are discussing. They apply to everyone. Your specific definition of unequal doesn't allow us to take away any of those rights. Including the right to vote.
So, lacking any serious input as to altering the dynamics of electing our politicians, you now want to pickup your dodgeball and go home. Because, if you don't support it then there can be no support for it. Sorry, but that's not how the game is played.If you want to discuss the problem, start a thread about it. Your solution to it means disenfranchising voters, which is somewhat relevant to this thread. But there is no support for doing that.
You want my grandkids to vote? No you don't. They're under 10. If yours are voting age then I'd want them to vote. Whether they are on social security or are in some other way a negative burden on the the state.Not so.
Ok but then what does "One can have a law against murder. That’s fine" even mean. All that says is there is a written law in contempary society that says Murder is illegal. Whats the difference, they are both written laws.One can have a law against murder. That’s fine.
One cannot have a law that states “murder is hereby made illegal” because of Exodus 20:13 says it’s verboten.
Yes. Likewise, we end up with a situation where those perpetually and unjustly on the dole vote themselves to remain on the dole.So we don't end up in a situation where prisoners are voting themselves out of prison.
Your premises are undeniable. I haven't argued against them because they are undeniable. What you need to do is give an example of when that right can be removed. You've done that. I don't agree with it. For the reasons I gave when you first suggested it.The rights of citizens are not absolute and the government can and does restrict them. Likewise, voting is not a universal right but a legal privilege. And that privilege is amendable.
Do you have an argument that falsifies the premises? Let's see it.
Then if there is a reason for the law - if it is as you say what is 'best for a society to live together' then we can examine the evidence and consider it. But again, this is completely off topic.The Laws in Exodus were not just plucked out of thin air not purely relate to the idea that 'God says its law'. They also relate to what laws are best for a society to live together.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?