The Constitution protected religious conscience long before civil rights did (in fact, it was religious belief that motivated the civil rights movement). And even then, religious belief, conscience, and practice are protected, provided such do not deprive other human beings of life, liberty, or property without their consent. So even your example proves my point: actions are what matter, choices are what matter, feelings do not matter. How you feel does NOT give you the right to use force against me, any more than what I believe gives me the right to use force against you. I am allowed to use force to preserve life, liberty, and property, not coerce you into accepting a definition of marriage the flies in the face of civilized society.
 June 12, 2015 at 5:26pm
So-called “Christians” who willingly defy God’s will and refuse to obey the Law of Chastity (not to be confused with the repentant sinner who can be described as “whose spirit is willing but whose flesh is weak”) are no more Christian than overt secularists like yourself. They can adopt the title all they want, but they are no more disciples of the Master than the men and women in the mob who shouted “CRUCIFY HIM!”
 June 12, 2015 at 5:23pm
Because he is probably an honorable man who recognizes his views are his and his alone, and that it might impede the work of God and spreading the Word if he calls unnecessary scrutiny to his flock.
He might very well be able to handle the inevitable persecution that would come from disclosing his identity. That doesn’t mean all the members of his congregation would be. His job is to protect them first and continue the work God has for him to accomplish, not to seek his glory instead of God’s.
 June 12, 2015 at 5:20pm
Also Monk, even if we can apply the verse in question to homosexuals and transgendered persons, is it not a better interpretation/application to say that such should be “eunuchs by choice” i.e. individuals who refrain from sexual relations (since they cannot be married) because of God’s law of chastity and marriage? If we put these verses in the context of the whole Bible, God condemns fornication (sex without marriage) and specifically defines the Natural Order of marriage as being between a man and a woman, ergo, homosexuals/transgenders -even if “born that way”-must thus choose to make themselves eunuchs (forgo sexual relations) for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
 June 5, 2015 at 10:53pm
If I were this poor woman’s family, I’d sue the government for wrongful death due to criminal negligence.
 June 5, 2015 at 10:52pm
////That is a bit of a leap considering statistics show that it would have been more likely either she would have accidentally shot someone else or the weapon would have been used on her.////
Considering that statistic is lie, your argument is invalid.
////I frankly don’t care about guns one way or another…////
Another lie since you are willingly to use what is a well-known lie to support an anti-gun stance…
////you cannot try to make unfortunate circumstances match the narrative you want///
You mean kind of how leftists like yourself use shooting massacres to justify draconian laws like the kind they have in NJ? So not only are you a liar, but a hypocrite as well? How much does Putin pay you to hang out here?
If HE had a knife and SHE had a gun.....there at least is a chance...he gets shot. If HE has a knife and SHE just had her hand...with some skin on it...there's a 100% chance he does NOT get shot and she gets stabbed to death.
But being a Liberal thinker..."LibertarianSocialist.." you have absolutely no idea what I just said.
 May 19, 2015 at 1:57am
It’s also not necessarily literal, but symbolic of woman’s relationship to man. Eve was taken from Adan’s side, as in she is to be a companion always at his side (not in front nor behind). The rib is also what protects the heart of man.
May 16, 2015 at 11:10am
Georgie, bubby, look up the definition of a “cliched argument” because that’s all your post is. Your points have already been dealt with, extensively, by experts and apologists and even myself in a plethora of locations (try FAIRlds.org for starters). So, the fact that you choose to repeat them means either you are ignorant of these responses to your false accusations, and are merely regurgitating what you’ve read on some anti-Mormon blog, or you have read them and choose to ignore the facts and logic they present counter to said false accusations.
So which is it Georgie? Are you a liar? Or are you just plain stupid? Those are your only two choices here.
 May 15, 2015 at 2:15am
I know I’ll catch a lot of hell for suggesting this from some of the peanut gallery here, but why not do the same thing for the Book of Mormon? It’s written for our day, based in the Americas, and right now we are experiencing a lot of the stories that happened there. The controversy alone might gather a larger audience, and the fact that it hasn’t been done before (expect for that really crappy movie and the kids cartoons) means you’d be brining something new and fresh to the table and not competing with so many other takes on the Bible in the media. Give it a thought.
Sure there is already that story. Called Alice in Wonderland about chasing rabbits down holes. This is a true saying you know.
Do you know the definition of a false prophet ? If a person speaks in the name of the Lord and what he states does not come to pass then that person does not speak for the Lord and you are not to listen to him. Do I have to list the many false prophecies of Joseph Smith ? Smith lied about polygamy to his wife and to his critics while he was practicing it. We call people like that LIARS. He took the wives of Mormon men , Zina Jacobs is just one of them. we call people like that adulterers . I have never read anywhere that Joseph Smith repented of that.
Glenn should do a story on the Book of Abraham, Smith translated an Egyptian funerary papyrus dated from the first century but said that Abraham had wrote it. The papyrus had nothing to do with Abraham, anyone can see the papyrus he supposedly translated . The papyrus does not lie but the supposed translator did.
How about Glenn does the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible where smith added hundreds of passages to Isaiah and Deuteronomy and other books of the Bible going against the Dead Sea scrolls and the thousands of manuscripts from diverse locations . He definitely added to the Bible and according to the Bible Smith is accursed.
Apostle Bruce McConkie and President Gordon Hinckley both admitted that Brigham Young taught that Adam was the LDS God , Brigham Young and others stated that Joseph Smith taught them this.
While don't we just quit playing hide LDS history because it becomes a mockery of truth .
 May 13, 2015 at 9:00pm
Random…not to mention completely false.
 May 10, 2015 at 5:46pm
This, of course, is a lie, since when is the last time you heard of “devout” Muslims rampaging against other Muslims, or even atheists or secularists for blaspheming Jesus?
Where were the angry Muslims during Piss Christ?
 May 7, 2015 at 11:41pm
What’s the difference you ask? Before I answer that question let the record show that you asking such a mind-numbingly dumb question belies either monumental idiocy on your part…or deliberate dishonesty. So I’ll ask you zappa: are you an idiot or a liar?
In any case, the difference is that most Christians who cite the OT are not actually advocating the death penalty for gays so much as they are pointing out how severe a sin homosexuality was considered (the OT also advocates the death penalty for not honoring the Sabbath, but these same Christians don’t cite those verses. Either they are horribly inconsistent, or you are blatantly misrepresenting their intent). The few, if any Christians who do advocate capitol punishment clearly do no understand the Bible, or they are ignoring it’s other teachings as found in the NT.
Here we have a radical Imam stating that an innocent woman who has nothing to do with Islam should be tried under Shariah law, found guilty, and put to death. That is NOT the same thing you ignoramus.
 April 21, 2015 at 2:29am
And that friends, is why God invented the flamethrower.
[-2] April 20, 2015 at 5:08pm
Here’s the correct answer: IT DOESN’T MATTER. Whether you choose to be gay or whether you are born that way is inconsequential to the issue of gay marriage. Advocates of gay marriage think the “born that way” claim will allow them claim to civil rights protections like skin color would for a minority. But how you feel-no matter how much you feel it is your nature- is irrelevant to how you ACT.
You're right that it doesn't matter, but wrong about why. Even if it were a choice (which it isn't), that would be irrelevant to the issue of civil rights protection because religion is undeniably a choice, and all civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
April 16, 2015 at 10:31pm
Ok here is the history of the term.
The term “Neo conservative” originated during FDR’s term when he was pushing for his New Deal. In order to increase its popularity FDR tried to get “new conservatives” who would be for it (but who were still socially conservative). The definition later expanded to refer to anyone who is socially conservative, but likes the same types of fiscal and regulatory policies (I.e big government) as liberals.
That was my bad. Sometimes it sounds like "grazing".
 March 19, 2015 at 5:46pm
It takes a pretty intellectually dishonest person to accuse someone of ONLY being concerned about the political backlash because that’s the ONLY consequence they listed. That or you’re stupid.
So which is it commie? You a dummy or a liar?
 March 19, 2015 at 5:40pm
I don’t know if the KKK is “liberal” or “conservative” as we use the terms today.
But I do know that Progressive Liberal icon Woodrow Wilson supported the KKK and even aired the KKK propaganda film “birth of a nation” from the White House lawn. Progressive liberal democrat Robert Byrd was member of the KKK and progressive liberal LBJ was an avid racist who opposed civil rights.
[-1] March 12, 2015 at 11:03pm
If you only defend free speech when you are talking about action by the government, do you really believe in free speech?
 March 12, 2015 at 11:01pm
Cavallo is correct: outside the US, the comparison of a person to a monkey does not have the racial undertones it has here in the states, because they do not share our history of racial strife. My wife (who is from South America) learned this lesson the hard way when she made a similar remark about an ex-girlfriend (who happened to be black). Good thing for her, she only said it in front of me so it was easily corrected and has never happened again.
Hispanics will say you look like in a monkey if they see the resemblance, regardless of your race. It has no racial undertones. Univision is overreacting, probably due to pressure from white, ignorant liberals.