The Jesus Gun

[Garfield1966]

She should loose her job. I am sure you are not implying that because one person does something bad, someone else should be able to a bad thing as well.

 

[SparrowHawk]

She should loose her job. I am sure you are not implying that because one person does something bad, someone else should be able to a bad thing as well.

Well you and others here don't seem to have a problem lumping all Christians with the likes of Pat Robertson.

 

[Garfield1966]

No I am pretty sure you are wrong on that. I have said on several occasions that Roberts has about as much to do with christianity as OBL does with Islam which is to say not a lick. I have also said that the clinic bombers and doctor murderers are no representative of the christian faith either. Nor are the likes of Haggard, Foley Edwards or any of the other hypocrites who seem to be in denial and have no problem saying do as I say not as I do.

This is not to say that there are not people who do paint with a broad brush. There are tons of those people of all persuasions but I do not feel I am one of them. To be clear, when I speak of the christian right I am referring to the people above who I do not think represent what true christians are. I do not believe that you fall into that category at least not from what I have read. When I speak of the liberal left, I do not believe that they represent what liberals such as my self represent either.

 

[joanne]

Sparrow,
"Kinda" along the lines of what we've been discussing, a question .(You're best guess will do.)

I'm sure you've heard/read about the 10 Americans who are being held in a Haitian jail for trying to take kids to freedom/Safety.

These folks are from an evangelical group headed by some pastor from IDAHO.

Do you think these folks have an (ultimate) ulterior Motive ?

 

[southwind]

She should loose her job. I am sure you are not implying that because one person does something bad, someone else should be able to a bad thing as well.

No ! I'm saying parents should be able to raise their children as they see fit, whether a Christian or an Atheist and hopefully these parents will raise their kids so THEY can decide which they prefer, when they are older !

The government needs to keep their paws off of them !

 

[Garfield1966]

No ! I'm saying parents should be able to raise their children as they see fit, whether a Christian or an Atheist and hopefully these parents will raise their kids so THEY can decide which they prefer, when they are older !

The government needs to keep their paws off of them !

I agree with you for the most part but (and I just mean this as a question) do you think there are times when a parent is teaching the child things that are wrong and society (government) has an obligation to to step in.

Kids who's parents are KKK members or believe in the superiority of the white people to the point where they think it is OK to kill or hurt them. Is that a case where the state has an interest in protecting the child? How about parents who smoke drugs and who teach their kids that drugs are OK.

I am aware that this is a very slippery slope. I do not know what standard to use. I am sure we all have different ideas of what is reasonable and what is not. I am sure that we could all agree on certain things that are just plain wrong and not in the best interest of the child.

I was reading an article in the latest National Geographic magazine about polygamy. The women in the FLDS group have cars, cell phones and are free to travel about as they choose. Yet they do not leave the sect. The FLDS argument was that since they are free to do as they choose, they are not prisoners. he argument against it is that this is the only life they know. They would never survive in 'normal' society on their own. I do not think it is a far stretch to equate them with spouse abuse victims. They do not run because that is all they know.

I bring this up to ask this question. Even though the girls brought up in this society are not physically abused (at least not directly) are they really offered a choice of how to live their life? I would argue that they are not but I do not know if this is grounds for government intervention.

I think the genetic risks are but that I guess is a different thread.

Our beliefs seem to be somewhat fluid on this. If we label something a cult then we feel OK if not obligated to intervene on behalf of adults and children. he flip side of that is that cults are only a minority issue. No one would ever label christianity or judism or islam a cult. Too many people involved and it would not be PC to do so (and no I am not saying they are cults).

I'm interested to hear some opinions on this.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Since you are to lazy to study your own history....


God and the Commies



Looks like you did find it after all. Oops

lazy

Grow Up

Looks like you did find it not prove anything after all. Oops

FIFY

Just so I understand you correctly, lets review;

Charles Bennett sponsored legislation to make In God We Trust the national motto in 1955. The primary reason for the legislation was motivated over fear of the “Godless Communist†threat that started approximately 10 years earlier. Though In God We Trust had already been engraved on billions of US coins for, umm 80 years, “Godless Communism†was still on the march. 36 years after the legislation was passed and adopted, “Godless Communism†collapsed.

Seriously

Charles Bennett sponsored legislation to make In God We Trust the national motto so America could distinguish itself from other world superpowers.

"In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom, at the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by his will and his guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail."

In God We Trust was placed on US Coins as far back as the mid 1800’s, not because of some strawman fear of “Godless Communism†but because of an increased religious sentiment that existed during the Civil War. Charles Bennet long held the belief that In God We Trust should be the national motto.

As I stated earlier, “Godless Cummunism†is just another paranoid Atheist moron conspiracy theory.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Sparrow,
"Kinda" along the lines of what we've been discussing, a question .(You're best guess will do.)

I'm sure you've heard/read about the 10 Americans who are being held in a Haitian jail for trying to take kids to freedom/Safety.

These folks are from an evangelical group headed by some pastor from IDAHO.

Do you think these folks have an (ultimate) ulterior Motive ?

I don't have idea one what goes through the heads of some people, Chrisrtan or otherwise except to say that even the Bible warns believers to "Beware of false prophets".

Ulterior Motive? Perhaps! First motive that popped into my head is a very charismatic Pastor wanted to grow his flock and now he's got a ton of free publicity and it didn't cost him a dime. If I'm right those folks that went there will be on their own legally from both cost and support perspective.

 

[Garfield1966]

Grow Up


FIFY

Just so I understand you correctly, lets review;

Charles Bennett sponsored legislation to make In God We Trust the national motto in 1955. The primary reason for the legislation was motivated over fear of the “Godless Communist†threat that started approximately 10 years earlier. Though In God We Trust had already been engraved on billions of US coins for, umm 80 years, “Godless Communism†was still on the march. 36 years after the legislation was passed and adopted, “Godless Communism†collapsed.

Seriously

Charles Bennett sponsored legislation to make In God We Trust the national motto so America could distinguish itself from other world superpowers.

"In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom, at the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by his will and his guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail."

In God We Trust was placed on US Coins as far back as the mid 1800’s, not because of some strawman fear of “Godless Communism†but because of an increased religious sentiment that existed during the Civil War. Charles Bennet long held the belief that In God We Trust should be the national motto.

As I stated earlier, “Godless Cummunism†is just another paranoid Atheist moron conspiracy theory.

The same Congress had required, in the previous year, that the words appear on all currency, as a Cold War measure: "In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper" to "remind all of us of this self-evident truth" that "as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail."

 

[777 fixer]

3) Write a strongly worded letter to the ACLU and other groups of pathetic paranoid atheist morons reminding them of the fact at Trijicon’s has the constitutional right to emboss any combination of numbers, letters and characters in their manufacture code irrespective of the “perceivedâ€￾ religious connotation.

Isn't that a waste of time? The ACLU and other "groups of pathetic paranoid atheist morons" are not the one's buying the sights. As far as I know the ACLU has nothing to do with this so why you even mentioned them I'm not sure.

Now I guess they do have the right to put whatever they want on the product they make. Just like their primary customer, the DOD, has the right to tell them to take it off. You know the saying, he who has the gold. From a business standpoint it was kind of dumb to put it on there in the first place.

 

[joanne]

I don't have idea one what goes through the heads of some people, Chrisrtan or otherwise except to say that even the Bible warns believers to "Beware of false prophets".

Ulterior Motive? Perhaps! First motive that popped into my head is a very charismatic Pastor wanted to grow his flock and now he's got a ton of free publicity and it didn't cost him a dime. If I'm right those folks that went there will be on their own legally from both cost and support perspective.

Thanx Sparrow for an Honest response !

 

[Tug McGroin]

Isn't that a waste of time? The ACLU and other "groups of pathetic paranoid atheist morons" are not the one's buying the sights. As far as I know the ACLU has nothing to do with this so why you even mentioned them I'm not sure.

Wrong. ACLU and Atheist tax dollars look just like mine. We “the people†are buying the scopes.

Do the names “Michael Weinstein†and “Military Religious Freedom Foundation†(MRFF) mean anything to you? Michael Weinstein and his “Military Religious Freedom Foundation†are the group of “pathetic paranoid atheist morons†I was referring to. Atheist Jew Michael Weinstein provides lots of talking points for other Atheist Jews to post on public forums.

What legal resources do Atheist lawyers often turn to when forming a legal counsel team in a case like, say Weinstein v. US Air Force? Do you think the legal counsel for Weinstein v. Trijicon would look any different?

MRFF is the same politically correct, anti-Christian military "watch dog" group of “pathetic paranoid atheist morons†that didn't catch Nidal Malik Hasan's "SoA" (Soldier of Allah) reference on his military business card and claim that somehow Hasan felt harassed by non-Muslim military members into killing our troops at Fort Hood.

It gets better; MRFF has been nominated for the 2010 Noble Peace Prize.

MRFF believes that removing an obscure Scripture reference on the base of Trijicon scopes will affront Taliban/AQ terrorist. The same terrorists that scream "Allah Akbar" before lighting their penis on fire at 30K feet.

Now I guess they do have the right to put whatever they want on the product they make. Just like their primary customer, the DOD, has the right to tell them to take it off. You know the saying, he who has the gold. From a business standpoint it was kind of dumb to put it on there in the first place.

What about the crosshair position on the scope? The typical horizontal/vertical position could be perceived to have subliminal “religious†references. Will the DoD tell Trijicon to fix that? The pressure applied by MFRR was the driving force behind Trijicon’s decision to remove the bible references, not the DoD.

From the Taliban/AQ terrorist pov, the most odious aspects of Trijicon's optics are not the JHN.8:12 and other bible references, it’s Trijicon's ACOG self-luminous, Bindon Aiming Concept designed and battle tested scope, that has earned the reputation of having the most sophisticated and dependable deadly optics on the planet that really gets under their skin!

Suicide bombers are less interested in JHN.3:16 and more interested in number references like .223, .308 and .50, the caliber of BMG bullets that actually come out of “Jesus†gun barrels.

Implacable Islam has always viewed this war as “a holy warâ€; we're the one's who are still pretending it isn't!

 

[SparrowHawk]

Here's a thought regarding "atheist lawyer" & the ACLU.

BEFORE you go paining any organization with that broad a brush you might want to have a look at their membership roster. I know quite a few ACLU members becuse I see them in CHURCH!

If, like me you don't like to see Christianity bashed from pillar to post by an obviously biased media you might do well to remember that when you critisize the ACLU.

As to a "Holy War", I've never viewed our incurions into Iraq & Afghanistan as Christianity vs Islam. When people come to kill us I want my military to defend me as defined in the COTUS. I don't particularly care if the sight used to kill had inscriptions on it or not just so long as the hand upon the trigger aims well and kills those who seek to kill us.

 

[777 fixer]

Wrong. ACLU and Atheist tax dollars look just like mine. We “the peopleâ€￾ are buying the scopes.

Like I said what does the ACLU have to do with this.

http://www.aclu.org/search/Trijicon?show_aff=1

Do the names “Michael Weinsteinâ€￾ and “Military Religious Freedom Foundationâ€￾ (MRFF) mean anything to you? Michael Weinstein and his “Military Religious Freedom Foundationâ€￾ are the group of “pathetic paranoid atheist moronsâ€￾ I was referring to. Atheist Jew Michael Weinstein provides lots of talking points for other Atheist Jews to post on public forums.

Do you even realize what that makes you sound like?

 

[joanne]

I know.
A religious FANATIC, and a Blind PATRIOT !

As potentially deadly (to our society) as Anthrax or Smallpox !