Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on August 16, 2006, 06:27:08 AM
-
Mike Johnson: Plans for Katrina anniversary are absurd, revealing
August 14, 2006
How should a community mark the anniversary of a cataclysmic disaster that took at least 1,600 lives, devastated families, destroyed homes and property, and crippled an entire state's economy? Advocates of a somber memorial service or day of prayer and reflection beware. New Orleans City Hall wants to throw an elaborate party, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana plans to attack and silence any hint of religious sentiment. Could there be any clearer illustration of what is wrong in Louisiana?
As Katrina's anniversary date looms, national media outlets highlighted both of these outrageous stories this week. First, news broke that the administration of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was actually planning celebratory events to mark the city's tragedy. Included in the announced schedule were a huge fireworks display, a masquerade ball and a comedy show gleefully hosted by Harrah's Casino. Have they no shame? No decency? No compassion for those poor souls who lost everything in the storm?
With righteous indignation, a chorus of voices lambasted the mayor and Harrah's for their shocking insensitivity. Residents of the 9th Ward and other devastated areas were particularly emotional in their responses. By Tuesday, Nagin was forced to "clarify" some of his previous statements and call off the most controversial of the planned events. Still, he remained stiff-necked and attributed the changes only to logistical challenges.
Meanwhile, to the southeast, the St. Bernard Parish Council was taking heat of a different kind.
In that area -- ground zero for Katrina -- local leaders were making good decisions and planning appropriate events such as a memorial service and march, wreath laying and bell-ringing ceremony. They also announced citizens' plans to erect a large cross monument on the beach at the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet as a permanent memorial to the 129 parish residents who died in the storm. Enter the villainous ACLU.
In a demand letter, Louisiana ACLU director Joe Cook threatened to sue the parish in federal court if the cross is placed. Cook claims a "violation of separation of church and state" even though the cross will go up on private land and be funded by citizen donations. (Cook is clearly wrong, and I have offered the Alliance Defense Fund's services for free to help defend the St. Bernard against these ridiculous attacks.)
So, how should we memorialize America's greatest natural disaster? Perhaps if we spent more time in somber reflection and prayer, and less time on fireworks and costume parties, we could sustain the rest of the nation's sympathy and support.
Mike Johnson of Shreveport is senior legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund.
-
Oh I just love these unbias articles you copy/paste...
Firstly, New Orelans isn't celebrating the disaster. They are celebrating their recovery from the disaster.
Secondly, The ACLU is suing because the parish is planning to set up the cross. Not the private citizens. It doesn't matter where the cross will be or where the money came from. The fact that it's being set up by the city governmement(I'm assuming, though the article doesn't even explain) is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
If private citizens set up a cross they paid for on private land, Then the ACLU wouldn't have a case. The only reason they have a case is because it's being done by the city government opposed to private citizens.
Thirdly, You believe the ACLU is "villainous"? You're being brainwashed by the whitemans conservative fundamentalist propaganda.
Who was it who aided in the Brown v. Board of Education case to end public school segregation?
Who was it who fought in Loving vs. Virginia to end the ban on interracial marriage?
Oh...But you wouldn't possibly support banning segregation would you?
It's not like you're AFRICAN AMERICAN or anything like that...
-
Oh I just love these unbias articles you copy/paste...
Firstly, New Orelans isn't celebrating the disaster. They are celebrating their recovery from the disaster.
Secondly, The ACLU is suing because the parish is planning to set up the cross. Not the private citizens. It doesn't matter where the cross will be or where the money came from. The fact that it's being set up by the city governmement(I'm assuming, though the article doesn't even explain) is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
If private citizens set up a cross they paid for on private land, Then the ACLU wouldn't have a case. The only reason they have a case is because it's being done by the city government opposed to private citizens.
Thirdly, You believe the ACLU is "villainous"? You're being brainwashed by the whitemans conservative fundamentalist propaganda.
Who was it who aided in the Brown v. Board of Education case to end public school segregation?
Who was it who fought in Loving vs. Virginia to end the ban on interracial marriage?
Oh...But you wouldn't possibly support banning segregation would you?
It's not like you're AFRICAN AMERICAN or anything like that...
Yes the ACLU has done some good things over the years, but they've also taken extreme, partisan positions too.
-
Yes the ACLU has done some good things over the years, but they've also taken extreme, partisan positions too.
They take positions that "seem" partisan. However the positions they take aren't partisan towards one party or towards liberals or conservatives. The ACLU takes positions that would seem extremly democrat,extremly republican or extremly conservative or extremly liberal.
-
Hey Tyrone.......or welcome back Johnny Apollo..........missed ya man.
-
Hey Tyrone.......or welcome back Johnny Apollo..........missed ya man.
I'm not Johnny.
-
Yeah. Right.
-
They take positions that "seem" partisan. However the positions they take aren't partisan towards one party or towards liberals or conservatives. The ACLU takes positions that would seem extremly democrat,extremly republican or extremly conservative or extremly liberal.
The ACLU lines up with liberal Democrats all the time, particularly on religion and abortion issues. They have taken the extreme view that the First Amendment requires the removal of all religious expression from the public sector. I believe they have always supported abortion on demand (I think). Whatever good they do, of which I'm sure there is plenty, gets lost in the high profile very bad cases they get involved with.
I've talked to a number of ACLU people. They're about as liberal as you can get.
-
I'm not Johnny.
De-nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
-
Oh I just love these unbias articles you copy/paste...
Firstly, New Orelans isn't celebrating the disaster. They are celebrating their recovery from the disaster.
Secondly, The ACLU is suing because the parish is planning to set up the cross. Not the private citizens. It doesn't matter where the cross will be or where the money came from. The fact that it's being set up by the city governmement(I'm assuming, though the article doesn't even explain) is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
If private citizens set up a cross they paid for on private land, Then the ACLU wouldn't have a case. The only reason they have a case is because it's being done by the city government opposed to private citizens.
Thirdly, You believe the ACLU is "villainous"? You're being brainwashed by the whitemans conservative fundamentalist propaganda.
Who was it who aided in the Brown v. Board of Education case to end public school segregation?
Who was it who fought in Loving vs. Virginia to end the ban on interracial marriage?
Oh...But you wouldn't possibly support banning segregation would you?
It's not like you're AFRICAN AMERICAN or anything like that...
Johnny, Tyrone, or whoever you are today... I agree with what you say about the American Civil Liberties Union and their efforts back then. But, you need to freely and unequivically admit that the ACLU is now a far cry from the cases you quote. Instead of being advocates for animals like PETA is, the ACLU is now the PETA of Political Correctness.
For all the bias that you scream of me, you would have to admit that you are simply on the opposite end of the table. Or even worse, you sit back, watch, DO NOTHING, and then critique everything. You're like sportscaster who commentates on football games as if you are a veteran, yet you've never played a down in your life! And when you get called on this, you use your "journalistic" influence to throw your punches.
BTW, I still consider myself black. After being a 'nig*a', negro, colored, and black american, I realized that I don't need the ACLU's or other PC fascist orginizations to define who I am. So, I got off the PC train at being black. I'll only take my orders of who I am from God, and God alone thank you very much.
-
The ACLU lines up with liberal Democrats all the time, particularly on religion and abortion issues. They have taken the extreme view that the First Amendment requires the removal of all religious expression from the public sector. I believe they have always supported abortion on demand (I think). Whatever good they do, of which I'm sure there is plenty, gets lost in the high profile very bad cases they get involved with.
I've talked to a number of ACLU people. They're about as liberal as you can get.
- You claim the ACLU holds an "Extreme view" of the 1st amendment yet the supreme court has made it clear that a "wall of seperation" exists between church and state. Opposing religious expressions from the govt isn't an "Extreme view".
- You claim the ACLU is liberal? Is supporting the KKK or Neo nazi's who are extremly far right wing conservatives "liberal"? No.
-
For all the bias at you scream of me, you would have to admit that you are simply on the opposite end of the table. Or even worse, you sit back, watch, DO NOTHING, and then critique everything. You're like sportscaster who commentates on football games as if you are a veteran, yet you've never played a down in your life! And when you get called on this, you use your "journalistic" influence to throw your punches.
BTW, I still consider myself black. After being a 'nig*a', negro, colored, and black american, I realized that I don't need the ACLU's or other PC fascist orginizations to define who I am. So, I got off the PC train at being black. I'll only take my orders of who I am from God, and God alone thank you very much.
Give us examples. Solid examples of what the ACLU does that you're against.
-
Johnny, Tyrone, or whoever you are today... I agree with what you say about the American Civil Liberties Union and their efforts back then. But, you need to freely and unequivically admit that the ACLU is now a far cry from the cases you quote. Instead of being advocates for animals like PETA is, the ACLU is now the PETA of Political Correctness.
For all the bias that you scream of me, you would have to admit that you are simply on the opposite end of the table. Or even worse, you sit back, watch, DO NOTHING, and then critique everything. You're like sportscaster who commentates on football games as if you are a veteran, yet you've never played a down in your life! And when you get called on this, you use your "journalistic" influence to throw your punches.
BTW, I still consider myself black. After being a 'nig*a', negro, colored, and black american, I realized that I don't need the ACLU's or other PC fascist orginizations to define who I am. So, I got off the PC train at being black. I'll only take my orders of who I am from God, and God alone thank you very much.
*applause* Well said.
-
Give us examples. Solid examples of what the ACLU does that you're against.
First you say this article is biased, then you tell me you want proof. Ok, here's another article on the same topic. The ACLU is full of cases like this now. It's like this is there sole agenda...remove any signs of Judeo-Christian influence.
Associated Press - ACLU Concerned About Hurricane Memorial Featuring Cross in Louisiana
August 7, 2006
The Associated Press
CHALMETTE — The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is unhappy with plans for a hurricane memorial in St. Bernard Parish will feature a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.
In a July 28 letter, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said that the government promotion of a patently religious symbol on a public waterway is a violation of the Constitution’s call for the separation of church and state.
Parish President Henry “Junior” Rodriguez said, however, he sees nothing improper about the memorial, which will be mounted near the shoreline of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet at Shell Beach. The cross and accompanying monument listing the names of the 129 parish residents who died in Hurricane Katrina are earmarked for what the parish says is private land and are being financed with donations, Rodriguez said.
Cook asked the parish to erect a religiously neutral symbol and voiced concern that the Parish Council was sanctioning a religious monument.
The St. Bernard Parish Council voted several months ago to erect a monument, but at the time did not offer specific plans. The parish recently announced plans to dedicate the memorial on Aug. 29, the one-year anniversary of the devastating hurricane.
The cross is being designed and fabricated by Vincent LaBruzzo, a welder and fabricator. The stainless-steel cross will be 13 feet tall and 7 feet wide and will be lighted, according to a note on the parish’s Web site.
LaBruzzo worked for the parish before recently taking a job with Unified Recovery Group, the company clearing the parish’s storm debris. Rodriguez said he helped LaBruzzo get the job with URG. LaBruzzo did not return phone messages seeking comment.
Rodriguez and others like the idea of putting the monument along the banks of the MRGO, because that waterway, dug by the federal government as a shipping shortcut in the 1960s, is widely blamed in the parish for accelerating the deadly flooding that accompanied Hurricane Katrina. Over the years erosion has widened the outlet, so the bank on which the cross will be erected is on privately owned land, Rodriguez said. He added that the parish is researching who owns the land on which the stone monument bearing the names of the victims will sit, but he thinks that it is also privately owned.
Parish Councilman Tony “Ricky” Melerine and Charlie Reppel, Rodriguez’s chief of staff, said they are co-chairing the memorial committee on their private time.
“The memorial is being coordinated by a group of volunteers on their own time, and no public money is going to the project that will be on private land,” Reppel said. “The committee members are all volunteers, including me. We are putting in a lot of unpaid overtime.”
Other committee members include St. Bernard Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Anthony Fernandez Jr.; St. Bernard Tourism Director Elizabeth “Gidget” McDougall; former Parish President Charles Ponstein, who is working with a state agency on local business retention; Lorrie Allen, Reppel’s assistant; and LaBruzzo.
While the ACLU thinks a memorial to the storm and its victims is “clearly appropriate,” Cook said, St. Bernard’s is “still all very questionable. I think there is official government involvement with the endorsement and advancement of this clearly religious symbol.”
-
*applause* Well said.
Thanks, bro.
-
First you say this article is biased, then you tell me you want proof. Ok, here's another article on the same topic. The ACLU is full of cases like this now. It's like this is there sole agenda...remove any signs of Judeo-Christian influence.
Associated Press - ACLU Concerned About Hurricane Memorial Featuring Cross in Louisiana
August 7, 2006
The Associated Press
CHALMETTE — The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is unhappy with plans for a hurricane memorial in St. Bernard Parish will feature a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.
In a July 28 letter, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said that the government promotion of a patently religious symbol on a public waterway is a violation of the Constitution’s call for the separation of church and state.
Parish President Henry “Junior” Rodriguez said, however, he sees nothing improper about the memorial, which will be mounted near the shoreline of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet at Shell Beach. The cross and accompanying monument listing the names of the 129 parish residents who died in Hurricane Katrina are earmarked for what the parish says is private land and are being financed with donations, Rodriguez said.
Cook asked the parish to erect a religiously neutral symbol and voiced concern that the Parish Council was sanctioning a religious monument.
The St. Bernard Parish Council voted several months ago to erect a monument, but at the time did not offer specific plans. The parish recently announced plans to dedicate the memorial on Aug. 29, the one-year anniversary of the devastating hurricane.
The cross is being designed and fabricated by Vincent LaBruzzo, a welder and fabricator. The stainless-steel cross will be 13 feet tall and 7 feet wide and will be lighted, according to a note on the parish’s Web site.
LaBruzzo worked for the parish before recently taking a job with Unified Recovery Group, the company clearing the parish’s storm debris. Rodriguez said he helped LaBruzzo get the job with URG. LaBruzzo did not return phone messages seeking comment.
Rodriguez and others like the idea of putting the monument along the banks of the MRGO, because that waterway, dug by the federal government as a shipping shortcut in the 1960s, is widely blamed in the parish for accelerating the deadly flooding that accompanied Hurricane Katrina. Over the years erosion has widened the outlet, so the bank on which the cross will be erected is on privately owned land, Rodriguez said. He added that the parish is researching who owns the land on which the stone monument bearing the names of the victims will sit, but he thinks that it is also privately owned.
Parish Councilman Tony “Ricky” Melerine and Charlie Reppel, Rodriguez’s chief of staff, said they are co-chairing the memorial committee on their private time.
“The memorial is being coordinated by a group of volunteers on their own time, and no public money is going to the project that will be on private land,” Reppel said. “The committee members are all volunteers, including me. We are putting in a lot of unpaid overtime.”
Other committee members include St. Bernard Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Anthony Fernandez Jr.; St. Bernard Tourism Director Elizabeth “Gidget” McDougall; former Parish President Charles Ponstein, who is working with a state agency on local business retention; Lorrie Allen, Reppel’s assistant; and LaBruzzo.
While the ACLU thinks a memorial to the storm and its victims is “clearly appropriate,” Cook said, St. Bernard’s is “still all very questionable. I think there is official government involvement with the endorsement and advancement of this clearly religious symbol.”
The ACLU opposes this because it's being done by the local government and not private citizens. Thus violation of the constitution and seperation of church and state.
Many people died during hurricane katrina and many people lost alot. Not all of them were Christians.
-
- You claim the ACLU holds an "Extreme view" of the 1st amendment yet the supreme court has made it clear that a "wall of seperation" exists between church and state. Opposing religious expressions from the govt isn't an "Extreme view".
- You claim the ACLU is liberal? Is supporting the KKK or Neo nazi's who are extremly far right wing conservatives "liberal"? No.
I believe in church-state separation, but I don't advocate the extreme, paranoid view held by the ACLU. The supreme court did not make clear that all religious expression has to be removed from the public sector. That's why they say a prayer in federal courtrooms, including the U.S. Supreme Court. That's why both the House and Senate have a chaplain on the payroll. What the Establishment Clause is designed to do is prevent the government from endorsing a particular religion. It is not designed to have people running around the country trying to find every piece of religious artwork on public property.
Supporting the free speech rights of members of the KKK is fine, supporting abortion on demand is not. What I said was the ACLU has done plenty of good, but it's overshadowed by some of their extreme views IMO.
-
I believe in church-state separation, but I don't advocate the extreme, paranoid view held by the ACLU. The supreme court did not make clear that all religious expression has to be removed from the public sector. That's why they say a prayer in federal courtrooms, including the U.S. Supreme Court. That's why both the House and Senate have a chaplain on the payroll. What the Establishment Clause is designed to do is prevent the government from endorsing a particular religion. It is not designed to have people running around the country trying to find every piece of religious artwork on public property.
Prayer in courtrooms is a private matter and no one is forced to do it.
The house and senate shouldn't have a chaplan on payroll.
Supporting the free speech rights of members of the KKK is fine, supporting abortion on demand is not. What I said was the ACLU has done plenty of good, but it's overshadowed by some of their extreme views IMO.
What's wrong with abortion?
-
Give us examples. Solid examples of what the ACLU does that you're against.
1. The Mt. Soledad Memorial case in California
2. The ACLU back a Las Vegas, NV school board for cutting a valedictorian's speech at a graduation for thanking Jesus.
3. The 10 Commandments case in Kentucky
that's just 3 off the top of my head. And as Beach said, the ACLU is all over the partial-birth abortion argument. Where ever you see Planned Parenthood in the news, the ACLU is sure to follow.
-
The ACLU opposes this because it's being done by the local government and not private citizens. Thus violation of the constitution and seperation of church and state.
Many people died during hurricane katrina and many people lost alot. Not all of them were Christians.
If these people are volunteering, doesn't that constitute them being private citizens? They aren't getting paid for this. I think you conveniently skipped that part of the article.
-
Many people died during hurricane katrina and many people lost alot. Not all of them were Christians.
Just because they aren't all Christians doesn't mean that the ones who are should be prevented from putting up a memorial if they so choose. You are trading the rights for one group of people to appease another group of people. How is that any fair?
-
Prayer in courtrooms is a private matter and no one is forced to do it.
The house and senate shouldn't have a chaplan on payroll.
What's wrong with abortion?
Oh really? Ever been in a federal courtroom? You cannot simply walk out while they're going through their "God save this honorable court" mantra. It's not voluntary at all if you're one of the parties or lawyers involved. I bet the authors of "Game of Shadows" won't be able to walk out of the federal court room when they show up for their contempt hearing pretty soon.
Whether you agree with the chaplains or not, they're there.
I didn't say anything was wrong with abortion. I haven't expressed an opinion on abortion one way or the other. I have a problem with the ACLU's position, which I think is a support for abortion on demand, regardless of circumstances. I don't think most of the country supports this view. Abortion is a very, very difficult and complicated issue, but supporting things like a minor's ability to cross state lines to get an abortion without their parents knowledge or consent is extreme IMO.
-
1. The Mt. Soledad Memorial case in California
The ACLU opposed the aqusition of the memorial with tax payer dollars. The cross itself was on government owned land and had no business being there since many Americans who died in iraq aren't Christians.
You would support the case if it was a giant cross of David or some Hindu symbol on govt land and you'd be saying the same thing i'm saying now. ::)
2. The ACLU back a Las Vegas, NV school board for cutting a valedictorian's speech at a graduation for thanking Jesus.
They cut that speech because of the fact she was basically preaching for christianity at a school sponsored event. The public school paid for by tax payer dollars allowed her to go onstage. Her preaching about christianity would of been viewed as a school support for christianity.(Violation of the constitution)
3. The 10 Commandments case in Kentucky
This is an obvious violation of the constitution. The statue was an obvious symbol of religion and was put out by the state government as if to support a specific religion.
This sends the wrong message to non-christians. When they see the 10 commandments displayed outside courtrooms or capital buildings they think that those law makers care more about their religious beliefs than they do the law. As if to say "Our rules are the 10 commandments and not the laws we make). When the laws being made are often in contradiction to the 10 commandments.
that's just 3 off the top of my head. And as Beach said, the ACLU is all over the partial-birth abortion argument. Where ever you see Planned Parenthood in the news, the ACLU is sure to follow.
So?
-
- KKK or Neo nazi's who are extremly far right wing conservatives "liberal"? No.
That's quite an interesting take on those groups.
-
The ACLU opposed the aqusition of the memorial with tax payer dollars. The cross itself was on government owned land and had no business being there since many Americans who died in iraq aren't Christians.
You would support the case if it was a giant cross of David or some Hindu symbol on govt land and you'd be saying the same thing i'm saying now. ::)
They cut that speech because of the fact she was basically preaching for christianity at a school sponsored event. The public school paid for by tax payer dollars allowed her to go onstage. Her preaching about christianity would of been viewed as a school support for christianity.(Violation of the constitution)
This is an obvious violation of the constitution. The statue was an obvious symbol of religion and was put out by the state government as if to support a specific religion.
This sends the wrong message to non-christians. When they see the 10 commandments displayed outside courtrooms or capital buildings they think that those law makers care more about their religious beliefs than they do the law. As if to say "Our rules are the 10 commandments and not the laws we make). When the laws being made are often in contradiction to the 10 commandments.
So?
If these cases are so "open-and-shut", like the 10 Commandments case, then why did the ACLU lose? Why is the ACLU about to lose the Mt. Soledad case? And so on. C'mon bro, just admit that they aren't what they used to be, and the cases they take now specifically harass no other religion but those of the Christian faith. The crassness of your arguments are amazing.
-
The crassness of your arguments are amazing.
and familiar ;D
-
That's quite an interesting take on those groups.
It's the only take on them. They themselves identify as "Right wing" and "Conservative". They fit the mold of "right wing". Nazism itself is by definition a right wing political philosophy. The KKK has endorsed far right wing politicans since it began. Groups like the "Aryan brotherhood" or other white power groups also have far right wing affiliations.
-
If these cases are so "open-and-shut", like the 10 Commandments case, then why did the ACLU lose? Why is the ACLU about to lose the Mt. Soledad case? And so on. C'mon bro, just admit that they aren't what they used to be, and the cases they take now specifically harass no other religion but those of the Christian faith. The crassness of your arguments are amazing.
Concluding they are "wrong" because they lost is a logical fallacy. Basically an appeal to popular opinion.
They lost because the jury or the judges in the cases were bias.
-
It's the only take on them. They themselves identify as "Right wing" and "Conservative". They fit the mold of "right wing". Nazism itself is by definition a right wing political philosophy. The KKK has endorsed far right wing politicans since it began. Groups like the "Aryan brotherhood" or other white power groups also have far right wing affiliations.
Hitler identified himself as a Christian. Some bodybuilders identify themselves as 1st tier. It doesn't make it so.
Groups endorsing other groups doesn't make them the same group.
-
Concluding they are "wrong" because they lost is a logical fallacy. Basically an appeal to popular opinion.
They lost because the jury or the judges in the cases were bias.
And you're saying that you aren't biased? :-\
-
Hitler identified himself as a Christian. Some bodybuilders identify themselves as 1st tier. It doesn't make it so.
Groups endorsing other groups doesn't make them the same group.
Compairing Hitler identifying himself as Christian and bodybuilders identifying themselves as 1st tier pro's is completly different. The definition of "Christian" is vague and extremly ambiguous. There are thousands of definitions of "Christian".
Groups endorsing other groups doesn't make them similar. It just means the group endorsing the others supports them. Which is the entire point.
When have you see Neo-nazi's or the KKK endorsing left wing politicans?
Are you actually arguing the KKK isn't a right wing group?
-
Hitler identified himself as a Christian. Some bodybuilders identify themselves as 1st tier. It doesn't make it so.
Groups endorsing other groups doesn't make them the same group.
Well said, Stella.
-
Concluding they are "wrong" because they lost is a logical fallacy. Basically an appeal to popular opinion.
They lost because the jury or the judges in the cases were bias.
Dude that is such a copout. How do you know the judges were biased?
-
Are you actually arguing the KKK isn't a right wing group?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most original KKK members from the Democratic party? Sen. Dick Byrd from WV immediately comes to mind.
-
The ACLU should move its headquarters to Iran.
-
The definition of "Christian" is vague and extremly ambiguous. There are thousands of definitions of "Christian".
No. The correct definition of a Christian is a person that acknowledges their need for a savior and has accepted Christ as such.
I do agree that there are people who incorrectly believe that the definition of Christian is something else though, such as "being a good person," or "being of a certain denomination" or whatever. But if they haven't accepted Christ as savior, they are not Christians.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most original KKK members from the Democratic party? Sen. Dick Byrd from WV immediately comes to mind.
That's because the Democratic party and the Republican party of the late 19th century were very very different than the modern parties.
Moving into the early 20th century when the republican party started being more and more conservative you start to see most KKK members were republicans. For instance Edward Jackson who was elected govenor in Indiana and was a Republican.
In modern times most KKK members aren't even republicans because they consider the republican party to be too "liberal" or "left wing" for their tastes.
-
That's because the Democratic party and the Republican party of the late 19th century were very very different than the modern parties.
Moving into the early 20th century when the republican party started being more and more conservative you start to see most KKK members were republicans. For instance Edward Jackson who was elected govenor in Indiana and was a Republican.
In modern times most KKK members aren't even republicans because they consider the republican party to be too "liberal" or "left wing" for their tastes.
Hence the reason Americans shouldn't vote down party lines, but by issue instead.
-
No. The correct definition of a Christian is a person that acknowledges their need for a savior and has accepted Christ as such.
No. That's your definition of "Christian". However millions of christians would disagree.
Millions of Christians would say that simply "accepting jesus" isn't enough to be a Christian.
There are literally thousands of denominations out there and they all disagree on who is or isn't a Christian. Many say you must do specific things and not do specific things to be considered a true christian. They all generally differ. Many consider George Bush jr. a definite Christian. Many consider him not to be a Christian.
-
I totally disagree and I am a straight ballot on the FAR FAR FAR right!
You can take the move.org grap and move to Iran
-
Hence the reason Americans shouldn't vote down party lines, but by issue instead.
Yes. The 2 party system of politics is a failure.
-
No. That's your definition of "Christian". However millions of christians would disagree.
Millions of Christians would say that simply "accepting jesus" isn't enough to be a Christian.
There are literally thousands of denominations out there and they all disagree on who is or isn't a Christian. Many say you must do specific things and not do specific things to be considered a true christian. They all generally differ. Many consider George Bush jr. a definite Christian. Many consider him not to be a Christian.
I realize that some people's resources from which they draw the meaning of the word "Christian" may be different than mine.
I'm going by the definition put forth by the Holy Christian Bible.
-
and familiar ;D
lol :D
-
I'm going by the definition put forth by the Holy Christian Bible.
Correct again, STella. This is the ONLY definition. Tyrone, Johnny, whoever he is has the "worldly" definition of what a Christian is.
-
Welcome back Johnny ;D
-
Hey Tyrohhny, how about the ACLU supporting Illegal immigrants and Affirmative Action?
-
I realize that some people's resources from which they draw the meaning of the word "Christian" may be different than mine.
I'm going by the definition put forth by the Holy Christian Bible.
- It's not like the bible says "A christian is someone who....". As a matter of a fact the word "Christian" is only mentioned twice in the bible and it doesn't define it. The new testament uses the word "Christianos" which is what the Gentiles used to refer to the literall followers of Jesus. I.E. his disciples and others.Beyond that it's all interpretation.
- Holy Christian Bible? What's that?
-
- It's not like the bible says "A christian is someone who....". As a matter of a fact the word "Christian" is only mentioned twice in the bible and it doesn't define it. The new testament uses the word "Christianos" which is what the Gentiles used to refer to the literall followers of Jesus. I.E. his disciples and others.Beyond that it's all interpretation.
- Holy Christian Bible? What's that?
When you googled for how many times the word "Christian" is in the bible (twice), you should have also googled "Christians" (once).
The definition is found in Acts 11:26.....which will then lead you to an in depth study of the word "disciples." Or maybe instead of doing a study you could just google. ;D
-
When you googled for how many times the word "Christian" is in the bible (twice), you should have also googled "Christians" (once).
The definition is found in Acts 11:26.....which will then lead you to an in depth study of the word "disciples." Or maybe instead of doing a study you could just google. ;D
Acts 11:6 defines Christian?
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
???
-
Tyrone Power you look like you have a GED and your trying to explain the world like your Michael Savage.
Also lose the butt cutt!
-
Acts 11:6 defines Christian?
???
I think you may have read only part of my post.....you must now delve into a study of the word "disciple" regarding those referred to as such after Jesus' death and resurrection.
-
you guys are right for the most part about the nazis and the kkk most of them dont vote republican or democrat they vote a 3rd party most of the time or not at all alot of the time. that beiong said when has the aclu ever backed either one of those groups? I have never seen that. post a link i m not saying they have never but i havent heard of it. The aclu is the biggest waste of time in the world I am 100% against them i dont care what they do the bad outweighs the good. I am all for seperation of church and state me not considering myself a christian. I am opposed to abortion on demand I am not saying abortion all the time is wrong but most of the time it is. I havent seen anything good that the aclu has done in the last few years. As far as collosus being black that dosent mean that he has to support the aclu or any other group based on the color of his skin that is insane. So what has the aclu done for any other group other than the libs. in this county? Can you tell that I really despise the aclu and all their garbage spewing nonsense that they try to pull. It is crazy some of the shit they try to do
-
I hate when people try to push their religion on other people but that is not how I see this issue. I do not consider myself a christian I do belive in a higher god but I am not a baptist or anything like that. If you dont like the cross then dont look at it it is as simple as that
-
- In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations. (Skokie had a large Jewish population.)
- The American Civil Liberties Union today praised the Cleveland Mayor Michael White for his efforts to protect the First Amendment right of marchers scheduled to rally in Cleveland later this month.
- Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union siding with lawyers from the Ku Klux Klan? Not only did the alliance exist, it prevailed on March 5, 2001 as the US Supreme Court without comment or dissent allowed the Klan to participate in a Missouri "Adopt-A-Highway" program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11015prs19990803.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030501a.htm
-
- In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations. (Skokie had a large Jewish population.)
- The American Civil Liberties Union today praised the Cleveland Mayor Michael White for his efforts to protect the First Amendment right of marchers scheduled to rally in Cleveland later this month.
- Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union siding with lawyers from the Ku Klux Klan? Not only did the alliance exist, it prevailed on March 5, 2001 as the US Supreme Court without comment or dissent allowed the Klan to participate in a Missouri "Adopt-A-Highway" program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11015prs19990803.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030501a.htm
And your point is?
-
And your point is?
that beiong said when has the aclu ever backed either one of those groups? I have never seen that. post a link i m not saying they have never but i havent heard of it.
-
Ah so. Thanks.
-
- In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations. (Skokie had a large Jewish population.)
- The American Civil Liberties Union today praised the Cleveland Mayor Michael White for his efforts to protect the First Amendment right of marchers scheduled to rally in Cleveland later this month.
- Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union siding with lawyers from the Ku Klux Klan? Not only did the alliance exist, it prevailed on March 5, 2001 as the US Supreme Court without comment or dissent allowed the Klan to participate in a Missouri "Adopt-A-Highway" program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11015prs19990803.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030501a.htm
Wikipedia is for liberals
-
Wikipedia is for liberals
So?
-
well goos at least they have done some good
-
you guys are right for the most part about the nazis and the kkk most of them dont vote republican or democrat they vote a 3rd party most of the time or not at all alot of the time. that beiong said when has the aclu ever backed either one of those groups? I have never seen that. post a link i m not saying they have never but i havent heard of it. The aclu is the biggest waste of time in the world I am 100% against them i dont care what they do the bad outweighs the good. I am all for seperation of church and state me not considering myself a christian. I am opposed to abortion on demand I am not saying abortion all the time is wrong but most of the time it is. I havent seen anything good that the aclu has done in the last few years. As far as collosus being black that dosent mean that he has to support the aclu or any other group based on the color of his skin that is insane. So what has the aclu done for any other group other than the libs. in this county? Can you tell that I really despise the aclu and all their garbage spewing nonsense that they try to pull. It is crazy some of the shit they try to do
you are wrong about that. most of them vote republican, not 3rd party.
-
uhh no most of these people dont belive that the rep. party is doing any good for the country. Alot not all but alot of them vote 3rd party no liberatarian but another party or write in a candidate
-
it was a big storm. Get over it. We don't need to memorialize this or any natural disaster.