User Profile: TeresaJ

TeresaJ

Member Since: June 27, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • May 1, 2015 at 8:15pm

    @ Jim S

    Crime and Sin as per the Bible mean exactly the same thing.

    If you infer from that that I, or that pastor, or anyone pointing this out mean that we should hunt down and kill gays, adulteresses, or anyone else… as with the statement regarding crime and sin, I don’t think you have studied the Scriptures very well.

    It is not my place to murder anyone, or sentence them beyond what our American law allows. For me to do so outside of a court of law would be murder first of all. Beyond that, as this Biblical story indicates, I cannot Judge in such a fashion, as I am certainly not a person without sin (crime). God is the Supreme Judge, and He doesn’t need my help, nor am I worthy, to carry out His Judgment. Instead, I am at this moment, bound by United States Law, until at what time it causes me to be unable to follow God’s law in whatever manner that should take place.

  • [4] May 1, 2015 at 12:27pm

    Christ did not correct the Jews in that manner. He never once said that the woman didn’t deserve exactly as the Law dictated. What He essentially asked was if anyone in the crowd that didn’t deserve exactly the same punishment as the woman. No one could condemn her, knowing they held just as punishable of sins.

    After the crowd left, Jesus then turned to her and asked where her accusers, that is, those who held testimony against her were, to which she replied there were none. He then said, “Neither do I accuse you,” meaning He had the full right to carry out her punishment if He wished. He then said, “Go and sin no more.” The woman knew she had received mercy, knew she had been given another chance. The Bible does not make clear whether she squandered it, but I can’t imagine she did.

    This pastor is not saying gays should be murdered. He is saying homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, and as such should never be accepted by a civil society. Our laws allow privacy in one’s own home, and thus, sexual immorality of all kinds has been found to be protected by the Constitution. That doesn’t mean the public should be forced to call it “good” or “acceptable,” though, especially once the public has to start dealing with the consequences of those “private actions.”

  • [5] April 29, 2015 at 11:17pm

    Harry… you are making arguments without understanding the law, and frankly, your comment on religion highlights the ignorance of people. However, I’m also going to assume that you are replying to the first part of my answer, and not the second, which I failed to warn would be posted. Be without doubt, however, that religion is the first right protected in this country, and it will not be laid aside.

    I have already shown you previously some time back, and it has not changed, that not only are studies flawed, having been carried out with the same disregard for facts as the current liberal agenda itself, but that behaviors cannot be proven as immutable for the simple reason that they can be copied.

    Even if the case do be proven, you will never prove that it will never have bearing on anything. To say so, *that* is to ignore science. At best, it might qualify as a quasi-suspect class, like gender, but even that will be difficult to prove if the class’s contribution or lack thereof to society cannot even be discussed objectively.

  • [3] April 29, 2015 at 10:53pm

    Continued from last reply:

    Other factors can weigh in for a suspect class, but the most obvious given the ones the Supreme Court recognizes is a lack of effect on any matters in discussion. Race, religion, and national origin are completely irrelevant as to whether someone can perform most jobs, be married, vote, own property, etc. Gender, on the other hand, can have an effect, depending on the situation. Two men, or two women CLEARLY change the parameters of marriage, and so changed, render the institution genderless, which does have an effect. Gender is already NOT a suspect class.

    This is why that argument will not hold water, and the plaintiffs, really probably all lawyers and lawmakers involved, know it. I believe they count on the ignorance of the public to elevate sexual orientation to a protected class in this backdoor way.

  • [3] April 29, 2015 at 10:38pm

    Harry… you may claim you cannot chose your preferences, and for you, it might even be true. However, a key aspect of a protected (suspect) class is that it must have an immutable trait. Sexual preference is not a provable immutable trait, and as time goes on, all the more disproved by your own movement. All must prove the behavior is tied to his or her birth, and cannot be transferred, learned, or changed in anyway. That by itself is still not enough to be a suspect class, however, as it has been debated in here time and again that a pedophile could claim the same thing. Gender on the other hand… apparently that is not immutable by liberal standards, but I digress.

    A suspect class should also be powerless to help itself. The homosexual lobby has acquired very powerful backers.

    A suspect class’s characteristics shouldn’t keep it from contributing to society in a meaningful way. This is clearly still being debated in regards to homosexuality. I believe this is why the homosexual lobby must slap down questions with “homophobe,” to prevent any careful consideration in this area.

    In addition, many fail to realize that the 14th amendment does not bar *all* types of lawful “discrimination,” even including gender. Race, religion, and national origin are essentially the only traits that will receive the highest form of scrutiny every single time. Gender falls a step under that, called a “quasi-suspect class.”

  • [5] April 29, 2015 at 9:37pm

    Harry… yet again, sexual orientation does not qualify as a protected class. Even the plaintiff’s side knows this. If it did, the question presented here would not be simply whether the states’ laws are violating the 14th amendment, but whether the plaintiff’s 14th amendment rights are violated.

    The plaintiff’s side also knows that they cannot argue directly that marriage rights are being denied, because they aren’t, as well as acknowledge that what they argue is not for marriage, but a change in the parameters of marriage. Loving changed laws preventing people from marrying based on skin color alone. It did not change the parameters or definition of what marriage is.

    Those parameters fall squarely under states’ rights. In Windsor, this was used as the grounds to strike DOMA. SCOTUS cannot claim state’s rights to marriage to strike DOMA, and then say marriage parameters do not fall under state’s rights.

  • [8] April 29, 2015 at 4:57pm

    Harry, sexual orientation does not qualify as a federally protected class, nor is there a parallel between racial discrimination and this case.

    The bottom line of this case is whether the states’ marriage laws violate the 14th amendment, which from any way you look at it, they clearly do not. Even the previous striking down of portions of DOMA was done on the grounds that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over states’ interpretations of marriage, and thus equal protection was violated. What the Justices think, or anyone else thinks about those marriage laws, right or wrong, is irrelevant, so long as they satisfy the Constitution and established Laws.

    If the Judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs, they will literally be creating a new Constitutional Right out of thin air. The Constitution is supposed to be a document so limited that it takes a huge majority of the nation to amend it. If the Judges approve this, the separation of powers (already in jeopardy) will be so clearly compromised, there will be no saving the U.S. Considering the damage already done in other matters, I’m not sure this isn’t already true.

  • [1] April 22, 2015 at 12:30pm

    A 17 year-old girl I knew was killed due to a woman committing this “minor traffic violation.” She plowed into the back of that girl’s car, breaking her neck. You break the law, and you run from the police, you forfeit all rights. If you get killed, it is your own fault.

    As long the investigation shows that the police used careful judgment while firing, kudos to them, and I hope they are back to work soon.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] April 21, 2015 at 1:09pm

    My skepticism regarding “climate change” has nothing to do with whether it exists or not, but rather the one in the White House pushing for “climate change awareness.” As per usual, his priorities smell like dead rats. There is a reason he pushes, and money is the highest probable motivation. Give me someone whose priority isn’t to make millions, and maybe I’ll think it is important.

  • [18] April 18, 2015 at 5:20pm

    Standing Ovation

  • [4] April 13, 2015 at 6:33pm

    Matthew:4

    5. Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

    “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ ”

    7. Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”

  • [6] April 10, 2015 at 12:00pm

    “The bills are being considered long after the targeting scandal broke, which shows a lingering resentment among conservatives…”

    Are you kidding? Obama and co did nothing, NOTHING about it. Of course there is “resentment.” The government targeted people based on their political beliefs, and nothing was done. Justice has not been served. The left base grows increasingly like the system we left behind. They pay lip service to equality, but it actually means nothing to them.

  • April 8, 2015 at 9:17pm

    1. Skim until offended: Jim Crow did not read the link

    2. Disqualify that Opinion: If Jim Crow had read said link, he would know “disqualify” meant credentials, not related facts. Blog Quote: “(Liberals) want to argue about why your opinion on that topic doesn’t count.” Jim Crow technically skipped this step.

    3. Attack, Attack, Attack: See Jim Crow above

    4. Disregard Inconvenient facts: He also skipped this one, but the original post was opinion to begin with.

    5. Make **** Up: See Jim Crow #4 and #6. #6 specifically… Rick Santorum did not equate baking a cake, he equated baking a “gay wedding” cake.

    6. Resort to Moral Equivalency: Also see Jim Crow #4, and #6, although only implied. In his blog, the Blogger clearly calls out Republicans on this step as well.

    7. Concern Trolling: It would help his case if Jim Crow had read what he was refuting before commenting. Since this step was more optional than the others, it is no surprise Jim Crow skipped this step.

    8. When all else fails, Racism!: Check. Guess I won.

    Jim Crow got out of order on some, but managed to hit most of them. I think The Blogger missed one though: Bringing in irrelevant information.

  • [2] April 8, 2015 at 6:48pm

    A conservative writer and blogger made a checklist for the liberal battle plans for “debate” on the internet:

    1.Skim until Offended
    2.Disqualify that Opinion
    3.Attack, Attack, Attack
    4.Disregard Inconvenient facts
    5.Make **** Up
    6.Resort to Moral Equivalency
    7.Concern Trolling
    8.When all else fails, Racism!

    Skip #1 and you have liberal media interviews.

    The blogger contends that when “Racism!” is cried, you have won the battle. I guess Mr. Paul won. (Misogyny! is close enough)

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/

    Responses (2) +
  • [185] April 7, 2015 at 12:18pm

    I don’t understand what prevented you or anyone else from making the trip. Did airlines cancel your plane? Did surrounding states block the roads?

    Responses (5) +
  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 12:35am

    above should read “rampant reverse racism”

  • [2] March 27, 2015 at 12:29am

    Would it not be more helpful, if you wish to comment, for you to research the good, the bad, and the ugly regarding the Civil War, and give a balanced editorial on it? Because that is what is sorely needed here in America, not just on this subject, but on any subject. We desperately need real journalists who will present issues from the non-partisan side of the fence, a side that did still have some facsimile of existing in 1980.

    In the end, however, I agree with you. The license plates should remain under states rights, as should many, many other issues. The federal government has become too powerful, and the states themselves along with our elections are becoming irrelevant. We are supposed to have local elections to avoid “one-size-fits-all.” Isn’t it ironic, as good as it was that slavery ended, that it was the Civil War that devastatingly weakened states rights? This editorial on plates wouldn’t have even been necessary.

    Food for thought: Southerners are stubborn with long memories. I honestly believe the reason racism is still so prevalent is because the black community took the brunt of the Southerners anger in the aftermath for losing the war, and the attitude was handed down generations. If the North had not been unjust to the South (I’m not talking about the slavery), would slavery have ended in due time on its own, and the racial relations not be so bad today? Or would slavery still exist? Maybe. We won’t know.

  • [5] March 26, 2015 at 11:55pm

    Mr. Granger, I respectfully do not understand you. You make it clear at the end of your article that you understand that the “War of the States” was not all about slavery for all Southerners fighting it, and you do not question “the love and loyalty felt by southern Americans for their country.” And yet, having admitted that, still do not understand that the Rebel flag s not a racist symbol?

    I know that racist southern groups have used the flag. I know racism still exists in the south (and can you genuinely say it does not exist in the north? Pot Kettle Black). Them I ignore, as should anyone. I refuse to allow the Rebel flag to be tainted by such as they, when for me, and a host of other people, the Rebel flag is a part of my heritage and nothing more… or will you contend that the Dukes of Hazard was a racist show?

    Of far bigger concern to me is the repent reverse racism that says I should be ashamed of my color and my heritage. Are you aware that, after attempts to ban and taint the Rebel flag, anything to do with the Confederacy is now a target by the same groups who called to thank you? Banning the Confederate uniform, removing statues of Confederate soldiers, and now recently, banning hoop skirts… HOOP skirts from a Georgia university campus? Do we southerners have you to thank for aiding in an attack on our heritage, a culture which apparently you do not understand, much less are qualified to comment on? (To be continued)

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] March 23, 2015 at 4:47pm

    16. You said, ‘No, we will flee on horses.’
    Therefore you will flee!
    You said, ‘We will ride off on swift horses.’
    Therefore your pursuers will be swift!

    17. A thousand will flee
    at the threat of one;
    at the threat of five
    you will all flee away,
    till you are left
    like a flagstaff on a mountaintop,
    like a banner on a hill.”

    18. Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you;
    therefore he will rise up to show you compassion.
    For the Lord is a God of justice.
    Blessed are all who wait for him!

    Isaiah 30

  • [2] March 23, 2015 at 4:47pm

    No. What it indicates is that God knew how people were going to act, even though He gave them every chance not to.

    1. “Woe to the obstinate children,”
    declares the Lord,
    “to those who carry out plans that are not mine,
    forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit,
    heaping sin upon sin;

    5. everyone will be put to shame
    because of a people useless to them,
    who bring neither help nor advantage,
    but only shame and disgrace.

    9. For these are rebellious people, deceitful children,
    children unwilling to listen to the Lord’s instruction.

    10. They say to the seers,
    “See no more visions!”
    and to the prophets,
    “Give us no more visions of what is right!
    Tell us pleasant things,
    prophesy illusions.

    11. Leave this way,
    get off this path,
    and stop confronting us
    with the Holy One of Israel!

    12. Therefore this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
    “Because you have rejected this message,
    relied on oppression
    and depended on deceit,

    13. this sin will become for you
    like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
    that collapses suddenly, in an instant.

    14. It will break in pieces like pottery,
    shattered so mercilessly
    that among its pieces not a fragment will be found
    for taking coals from a hearth
    or scooping water out of a cistern.”

    15. This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says:
    “In repentance and rest is your salvation,
    in quietness and trust is your strength,
    but you would have none of it.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love