CommentsDisplaying III_percenter's 10 most recent comments.

• Cornel West on Conn. Massacre: People Only Talk About Gun Control When White People Get Shot

  December 25, 2012 at 8:30pm

  Even a blind rat finds a piece of cheese occasionally.

  He’s absolutely right. The Left isn’t against guns as a matter of principle but as a political tool to advance their totalitarian agenda. Why doesn’t the Left care that Black and Hispanic gangs have turned the inner cities into war-zones? Because the Left has already conquered both of those ethnicities: they are already firmly chained to their Liberal taskmasters in conditions that the slaves of 1860 would have scoffed at. What is laughable is this Liberal sheep realizes the hypocrisy but can’t make the connection to the philosophy that produces such duplicity. Conservatives don’t go after guns—as a matter of principle. If Black people choose to kill each other in droves, conservatives don’t blame the gun: they blame the person. If a white guy shows up and kills other white people, conservatives don’t blame the gun: they blame the person. Only Liberals turn a blind eye to the suffering of black people and then accuse conservatives of racism while simultaneously demanding white people surrender their guns because 20 white kids got shot: 20 kids who only have value to a Liberal because their parents decided not to abort them.

• Judge to Rule Today on Atheist Push to Ban TX Cheerleaders’ Bible Banners

  October 18, 2012 at 12:38pm

  What I want to know is why is it that the minority religion (atheism) is the one that is being promoted in public schools. If most people in the country are not atheists, why are we the ones that have to leave and go to private or charter schools to get a decent education. Shouldn’t it be the other way around at least? If you’re an atheist, you have the same right to found a school and teach whatever you want. Why is it that the Christians are the ones that need to “keep their religion in its place” but atheists can silence anyone they want? Or not even just Christians but “religious people” are the ones ostracized even though we are the vast majority. Perhaps the solution is to scrap the failed public education system altogether and put education back in the hands of parents where it belongs. That way, atheists can continue to teach secularism and they can have what are today’s public schools and the rest of the country can teach what they want etc. Strange how messed up everything gets when the government takes power that doesn’t belong to it. If the argument is to have a “standard” everyone must teach, the question remains: why teach the minority religion? Shouldn’t the families decide by popular vote what they want taught in their schools?

• Judge to Rule Today on Atheist Push to Ban TX Cheerleaders’ Bible Banners

  October 18, 2012 at 12:15pm

  “If the majority of the cheerleaders were atheists, would a court support their `right’ to hold up a banner insulting Christianity or all believers?”

  What kind of argument is that? That is not what is happening. No cheerleader is holding up a sign “Atheists are going to hell.” (I think we can all leave that to the lunatics at the Westboror Baptist Church). The signs are Biblical exhorations and encouragements. If you don’t find that encouraging, then it should have no affect on you at all: it should just be a brightly colored banner. Atheists (secular humanists as some above posts have pointed out) would be closer to a parallel if they put up something like “All things can be accomplished through human effort.” Obviously, as a Christian, a disagree with that statement in its purest form but I wouldn’t seek to see it banned especially not to stoop so low as to legally brow-beat a team of teenage girls. I don’t attend public sporting events because the use of alcohol and the oft-times distinctly sexual gyrations of young women in front a screaming crowd. What do I do about it? Stay home. I don’t sue to force people to comply with my beliefs or cram someone’s lifestyle into a small segment of society so I don’t have to be confronted with something at offends my sensebilities. You don’t like the football environment? Stay home.

• Agree? Teacher Orders Public School Students to Pray & Sing to Jesus — And Keeps Her Job (Take the Poll)

  October 18, 2012 at 11:55am

  I don’t know the context of the Muslim being fired but I don’t know that I agree with that either. Islam is not a religion of peace such as orthodox Christianity but a one time offense leading to dismissal strikes me as a knee jerk reaction against an unpopular religion in our country right now. Obviously, if you fire one, you ought to fire the other but there should have been more corrective steps before just firing the woman. Just because she quotes from the Qu’ran or even gives a lesson or two doesn’t mean she’s turning the kids into terrorists.

• Agree? Teacher Orders Public School Students to Pray & Sing to Jesus — And Keeps Her Job (Take the Poll)

  October 18, 2012 at 11:50am

  As a devout fundamentalist Christian, I’d have to say that I do disagree with her ordering the students to pray. Being forced to pray is just reciting empty words to avoid punishment. I don’t know that she should have been fired per se but she definitely should have been disciplined.

  A better question is, why in a country that is so anti-Christian is Christmas still even a national holiday? I worked with a guy who was an avowed atheist and me a devout Christian. Christmas-time rolls along and guess who gets Christmas day off? Yep, the atheist. Now, I laughed then and I laugh now because its not worth getting angry over. I can celebrate my relationship with my Savior anytime I want–I don’t need December 25th. I just found it ironic that he so insisted on that day off even though he wasn’t celebrating anything.

• Chris Matthews: Un-constitutional scholar

  October 18, 2012 at 9:42am

  This is the first commandment of Obamanity–Thou shalt not speak when the Chosen One is speaking.

  Romney…Romney…BLASPHEMER!!! Pray to the prophets of MSNBC for forgiveness or you shall be tortured for eternity by listening to sound bites of Nancy Pelosi talking.

• Christian Author Spends 1 Year Taking the Bible’s Mandates for Women Literally: ‘God’s Word Was on Trial’

  October 18, 2012 at 9:34am

  In reply to bplumb23.

  Not true. Read Proverbs 31

  13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.–the woman is expected to help provide for the home.

  14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.–”like the merchant’s ships” means that she has a knowledge of reading and writing (log books) as well as mathematics.

  15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.–”portion to her maidens” means that she is generous but a wise steward, keeping careful records (reading and writing) of her household’s assets.

  16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.–buying and owning property was a sign of affluence. How many illiterate affluent people have come in history?

  And that statement totally ignores the historical truth of Israel. When Israel was close to the Lord (which happened rarely) Israel was a bastion of literacy. In fact, the notion that women were allowed in the synagogues was baffling to the Romans that conquered Palestine. The fact that the Bible addresses women at all assumes they should learn to read and was a revolutionary idea making the Judeo-Christian tradition the very first and only religion in history to given any dignity at all to the status of womanhood.

• Christian Author Spends 1 Year Taking the Bible’s Mandates for Women Literally: ‘God’s Word Was on Trial’

  October 18, 2012 at 9:25am

  There is a lot of confusion in this stream about the nature of “picking and choosing” parts of the Bible to follow or obey. Let’s just be clear: WE do not have the authority to decide which parts of the Bible are meant for who. God is clear enough who He is talking to when He is giving commandments. For example, Noahic Law states that *every* animal is given to man for consumption. Mosaic Law restricts this to a specified list. Which one are we supposed to follow? Simple: who does God say Mosaic Law applies to? Exodus 19:3–”And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say TO THE HOUSE OF JACOB and tell the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL” [emphasis added]. Mosaic Law applies to the Jews. God is capable of speaking for Himself and making Himself clear. Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are legal texts given for the governence of the Jewish Nation. Some, even many principles in these books are repeated in places like Proverbs and the Pauline Epistles as general laws of morality that God expects of all men but God is very clear about Mosaic Law–the literal application of these laws (dietary, ceremonial etc) are for a short time for a specific people. For more standards of behavior, especially for Christians no longer under the Law, you need to look for places that God is speaking in a general fashion to diverse audiences or find where the basis of a law is an unchanging truth of history, nature or God’s character. (i.e. the Sab

• Gary Johnson Discusses Same-Sex Marriage on ‘Wilkow!’

  October 18, 2012 at 4:47am

  In reply to III_percenter.

  part 3

  This, more than anything else, is where Libertarian thought falls apart. There is a difference between standing by a principle and hiding behind one. Libertarians don’t want to take sides so they hide behind the principle of small government as an excuse but even the states’ rights issue doesn’t solve the problem. What if a gay couple gets married in New York and wants to move to Texas where they don’t recognize homosexual marriage. The subject has crossed state lines: it is now a Federal issue and you have to take sides.

  Purely on principle, I would be a Libertarian. I don’t care if you’re gay–just keep it to yourself. I don’t care if you drink, but if you drink and drive you should never be allowed to drive again. I support isolationism but there needs to be no limit to how fast and how hard we will retaliate against an enemy that attacks us. I support “declared wars” not the abominations of Afghanistan and Iraq but its not politically correct to say that Islam creates these terrorists and thus declare war on Islam. I am against globalism and “entangling alliances” but no nation can survive without friendly diplomatic relations and sometimes that means standing with our allies in a fight (like Israel). I am for small government but not the anarchy that would ensue if Libertarian principles were implemented with no real-world common sense to govern them. Government grows when people are not moral. If you want small government, you must first have a m

• Gary Johnson Discusses Same-Sex Marriage on ‘Wilkow!’

  October 18, 2012 at 4:36am

  In reply to III_percenter.

  …cont’d

  Even if such a gene did come about by some random chance, it is destined to die out because homosexuals do not pass their genetic code on to the next generation. So we are being forced to alter our entire familial structure to accomodate something that is destined to be a temporary phenomenon.

  5) Society-When asked the question in a vacuum (aka without biases or agendas present) child psychologists almost unanimously agree that children develop best in homes where both genders are present. It is only after asked specifically about homosexual marriage that psychologists begin to disagree (because there are new agendas involved). Homosexuality is rife with promiscuity and instability at a rate 3 and 4 times that of heterosexual relationships and that alone contributes to major psychological problems in children.

  6) Church vs. State-Marriage is a distinctly religious institution. Religious-not necessarily Christian. In a purely Constitutional society (my ideal) it should be left up to the churches to decide and therefore religious adoption agencies would have the same latitude to accept or deny application based on sexual choice. In order to do this though, government on every level needs to get out of marriage. No more licenses, no more divorce courts–nothing.