The only mention that can be construed as Jesus speaking against gays is Mathew 19:4-6:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the context card out), the question he is answering is:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive mention of not getting a divorce

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the constitution, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god" whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Because Christians do not follow jewish civil or cermonial law.
>> ^hpqp:
Orly? How come I never see your righteous rants under videos about eating seafood? (Lev. 11:10-12) >> ^shinyblurry:
We're commanded by God to speak out against sin and we aren't going to stop obeying God to listen to the politically correct establishment.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

I have no issues with people closing their accounts, in fact, I commend them.
But they should have been organized in their movement and done it quietly and peaceably.

The protesters yelling and picketing is where they went wrong. They need to realize that it is a place of business and there are other business customers. When they form and create the ruckus they did, they need to be refused service at that time.

I don't think the bank was having people arrested for closing accounts, just for causing a disturbance. They might close their doors if there was a line up out the door and down the streets with the sole purpose of closing accounts though. Those that close their accounts win, while those that wait until those measures are taken will lose out.

The bank can only operate while using your money. if all money is withdrawn or if it is withdrawn too quickly, the bank is in danger of having investments collapse and those with money still locked within the system will see the value of their money depleted and valueless.

In order to stop this from happening, the bank would be obligated to close it's doors to protect not only their investments, but other people's money.

It can only take massive amounts of people withdrawing their money to open the banks eyes. They will respond. They can't stop you from withdrawing but they will stall the process of closing the account.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

>> ^quantumushroom:

As far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no such thing as freedom from religion, the fictional "right" that all religious people must not disturb even the air atheists breathe.
There's no wrongdoing here.

You forgot to tick the sarcasm box

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^marbles:
...The government doesn't have the authority to draw a circle in the sand and say the 1st amendment doesn't apply there...
FINALLY! Thank you! I've been searching for decades for this information!
/dances his way into Area 51 .. shufflin


Decades, huh? Maybe you should re-take a civics class at the local community college.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Sound familiar?

Declaration of Independance
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

US Constitution: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The law is there so people aren't disturbed in a public place, not to mention that those that DID protest, did so without a permit."

-Shepppard

I've long thought it incongruous that protesters should obtain a permit. Actually, the word incongruity fails to convey the de-clawed nature of a permitted protest. Protest without the threat of disruption is part of the Disneyfication of opposition politics.

You know what my permit to protest is? The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's deeply disturbing for me to see protesters corralled into "Designated Protest Zones" (also referred to as Free Speech Zones), which is a truly bone-chilling Orwellian concept.

Let's hope they all off themselves.

And take no one else with them.

The world will become collectively more intelligent on that day.

And we will all continue on more peaceably.

So sayeth the Lord.

Amen.

>> ^Payback:

I thought the Constitution only protected American citizens. Assange isn't American.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I think that's pretty clear, there, that it doesn't matter whether someone's a citizen or non-citizen. Freedom of the press shall not be abridged.

The Constitution actually makes pretty infrequent use of the word 'citizen'. AFAIK, the Constitution applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the government, and that there've been supreme court cases that have concluded this (I could be wrong, though, 'cuz I'm too lazy to go hunt them down). Assange, as a non-American not on American soil, doesn't get the protections granted to *people* until they get him here, I suppose.

But the freedom of the press definitely isn't targeted at only citizens or even only people. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. Very straightforward.

And this is why they're trying to name him an enemy combatant or a terrorist, and not a member of the press, so they can pretend that this is an exceptional case and that the Constitution can be circumvented, that he can be assassinated, etc. Because they have no real legal leg to stand on.

Thomas Jefferson was hardly left and mostly revolutionary. These inconvienent facts are as clear as day. The United States is meant to be Secular. Meaning wholly and unequivocally neutral on religion; "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-The First

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]

-Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association.

The above which as I understand it was then interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean exactly that, a Wall of Separation between church and state. I shouldn't have to link specific cases but to name a few; Torcaso v Watkins 1961, McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, Stone v. Graham, and of course Lemon v. Kurtzman.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[47]

-Treaty of Tripoli Article 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Church_and_State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

All this was for @quantumushroom.

>> ^lantern53:

She is correct. The amendment prohibits the establish of a religion, not the separation of church and state.


Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Catholic school?)(federal/state schools means...); or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re-read the bold part and post back when you know the answer.

Let's See:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

To her Credit, (and I can't believe I'm saying this), it doesn't say the words "Seperation of Church and State."

Douchebags with signs yelling about how they feel never get anywhere in life. Those kinds of actions are usually always disruptive and rarely "peaceably" assembling.

The 1st amendment doesn't state that you can say anything that you want whenever you want under any conditions.

If his conduct before his initial encounter with security was similar to his conduct after (during the video), considering the time and place, it could very easily be considered disorderly and inappropriate.

Why would you think I have a grievence with you? Your assumption may be a convenient premise for your rant, but it's not true. I think you read way too much into it.

As I saw it, you were telling people to drop it, that the discussion was over. I found it ironic that you posted the first Amendment in support of that opinion, yet the first Amendment contains more than just the Establishment Clause.

JFC, it was bold-faced simply so you would understand what I was referring to, the part I felt you either hadn't gotten far enough to read, didn't understand, or chose to ignore. Your reaction, as well as your assumptions about me, speak volumes, though.

"Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed."

Strange that you chose it.

The post prior... try reading the whole thing, and the post it was replying to. I was being critical of his telling others to shut up. Basically, a similar reason to why I replied to your post. People being able to discuss and say whatever they wish without being pricks to each other (guilty, on occasion) is why this isn't YouTube. But hey, you live in the world you want to live in and view it through whatever color glasses you choose. I don't care.

And accusing peeps of P-A is just so... choggish. If I truly had a "grievence", I'd have just spit it out.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Fletch:
Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.
If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.
I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.
.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?