what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
American Fundamentalism is a recent invention, and one born of lack of education, misunderstanding and the passionate defense of those by making up easily disproven "facts" and literally distrusting education.
Any argument based on that is bound to be pure derp.
what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
"whose" would make your own sentence look better
It sure would. Are you suggesting something I missed, should I perhaps have also said something about proper capitalization and punctuation?
science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?
) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..
next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.
Carl Sagan WAS strictly scientific. The quote was 100% out of context and purposely misleading. If anyone has any doubt of that, they need to read "Demon Haunted World"
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
You believe that the constitution provides marriage as a human right, because the Court, a small group interpreted that, though marriage is not mentioned in the constitution.
Look, it's simple. The Constitution says all laws must apply equally and that they cannot, without compelling state reason, be partial. The Constitution also doesn't mention cars, the FCC or airplanes, yet there are laws about them that apply equally to everyone also. Why are you not getting that?
However, the Bible says to abstain from blood, and another small group interpret that to mean blood transfusions also, but you don't accept that.
I'm an atheist, love, why would I?
what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
But to the ones who say I don't understand the law and constitution. I currently have a case pending in my state's court of appeals, that I did myself. They can do what they want and it can go either way but I'm pretty certain that I have an 87.3% chance of winning because I feel that my citations to the law and case law and use of them in argument is that good.
Or who's argument is "don't understand math, arithmetic, or the difference".
what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
Whether I would support it or not is not relevant, however, I believe that is the proper way to handle the matter for the whole country, rather than pull a rabbit out of the Constitution's butt.
Sorry, I struggle to concern myself with someone who's argument boils down to "can't make a complete sentence".
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?
) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..
next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.
