30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayAp is a big believer in totalitarian based societies. He believes it is the future.
As soon as anyone draws a line in the sand that can be called intolerance, if you say that
everyone's views must be accepted, accept those that disagree with everyone's views
must be accepted you have become intolerant, and a hypocrite. The separation of church
state as good as that sounds has never been true, the state and church both lead people,
the ...[text shortened]... agree with one another, but as soon as someone
draws a line where they don't, they will clash.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @eladarThere is nothing tolerant about totalitarian governments, those views are centralized to a
Ap is a big believer in totalitarian based societies. He believes it is the future.
very few. It is also no small wonder why getting people to stand up in a government and
write a law one way or another now days is almost a laughing matter, as soon as they do
draw a line, it doesn't matter where, so many will be up in arms. They need to grow a
couple and just do what they think is right, not because of what they can get out of it, but
because of it is right. Which of course means, lines will be drawn, but it will always mean
that.
Originally posted by @eladarNo. Your assertion does not follow from my statements, and does not reflect my stance.
You desire people who believe differently than you to be silent so that you can push ypur belief by way of government.
Typical for people like you.
Noisy advocates must submit to logical and reasonable critique, and your camp doesn't fare well under that restriction.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @js357The two are hand in hand.
Is it that they are politically appointed and active you object to, or the particular decisions they make? Usually I see people only yell "political activism" when they don't like the decisions.
But if one could get rid of one aspect, it would be political activist.
Nothing in the Constitution gives anyone a right to marriage.
01 Oct 17
Originally posted by @apathistSo resistance means squelching dissent? Very American of you. Your rights aren't above mine.
No. The church pushes, I resist. [b]Quiet believers of any sort aren't the problem here.[/b]
You need to learn how to make the distinction between church and state. Resist all you want. You won't silence me. You'll have to kill me to stop me.
01 Oct 17
Originally posted by @js357Politically appointed judges should confine their decisions to the will of the people. Otherwise it's corruption.
Is it that they are politically appointed and active you object to, or the particular decisions they make? Usually I see people only yell "political activism" when they don't like the decisions.
Originally posted by @kellyjayWe all stand for right against wrong, as we understand. If you like to eat my brains, and I don't want you to, well there is the grand story of life.
As soon as anyone draws a line in the sand that can be called intolerance, if you say that
everyone's views must be accepted, accept those that disagree with everyone's views
must be accepted you have become intolerant, and a hypocrite. The separation of church
state as good as that sounds has never been true, the state and church both lead people,
the pe ...[text shortened]... they agree with one another, but as soon as someone
draws a line where they don't, they will clash.