Well Mat Staver the chairman

[37Hoosier]

of the Liberty Counsel which is a evangelical group is lobbying congress to strip all language and protections from the unanimously Senate passed federal anti-lynching bill that would afford any protections to those folks who are anything but straight 8. But hey, at least they have progressed enough to admit we shouldn't just randomly hang those of different colors....maybe, and there was most likely some heated debate on that topic in the "counsel".

As the chairman says; "the old saying once that camel gets the nose in the tent you cant stop them from coming the rest of the way in"...I mean god forbid we discourage lynching others for living their lives as they choose. I mean the "Liberty" Counsel, as usual with right wing groups, only seeks liberty for those who meet the litmus test of religious intolerance. When I see the words Liberty, Patriotism, or Freedom associated with right wing groups, well, somebody is gonna get screwed..

He further stated that; " This is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill & then to sort of circle the wagon & go for the juggler @ some time in the future"...WOW, this guy has strategy all figured out. I am not sure what "it" is exactly and what "juggler" these American citizens are going for but I did notice he used some of the Orange Idiots terminology with his "so-called" reference. The Donald Trump University of strategic thinking on display right thar!

Not surprisingly the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the "so-called" Liberty Counsel as a hate group for not recognizing lynching as "the bias motivated act of terror that it is".

Maybe VPM can chime in with some counsel on why some are "hard hearted" towards religion or maybe even cite some bible passages to support this group? He took off pretty quick on his religious historical artifacts thread the other day. I wonder why religion in general is so hung up on sex & who is doing who...must go back to that whole virgin had a baby thing, I dunno.

 

[IUCrazy2]

of the Liberty Counsel which is a evangelical group is lobbying congress to strip all language and protections from the unanimously Senate passed federal anti-lynching bill that would afford any protections to those folks who are anything but straight 8. But hey, at least they have progressed enough to admit we shouldn't just randomly hang those of different colors....maybe, and there was most likely some heated debate on that topic in the "counsel".

As the chairman says; "the old saying once that camel gets the nose in the tent you cant stop them from coming the rest of the way in"...I mean god forbid we discourage lynching others for living their lives as they choose. I mean the "Liberty" Counsel, as usual with right wing groups, only seeks liberty for those who meet the litmus test of religious intolerance. When I see the words Liberty, Patriotism, or Freedom associated with right wing groups, well, somebody is gonna get screwed..

He further stated that; " This is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill & then to sort of circle the wagon & go for the juggler @ some time in the future"...WOW, this guy has strategy all figured out. I am not sure what "it" is exactly and what "juggler" these American citizens are going for but I did notice he used some of the Orange Idiots terminology with his "so-called" reference. The Donald Trump University of strategic thinking on display right thar!

Not surprisingly the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the "so-called" Liberty Counsel as a hate group for not recognizing lynching as "the bias motivated act of terror that it is".

Maybe VPM can chime in with some counsel on why some are "hard hearted" towards religion or maybe even cite some bible passages to support this group? He took off pretty quick on his religious historical artifacts thread the other day. I wonder why religion in general is so hung up on sex & who is doing who...must go back to that whole virgin had a baby thing, I dunno.

The Pastor probably thinks that trying to discuss these topics with someone so clearly bigoted against religion as you is a fools errand.

You have an opinion and you seek out information to support your opinion. What you do is no different than a racist who does not like black people and then backs up his dislike by combing the internet for articles about individual blacks behaving badly and then conflates it to everyone with a set percentage of melanin in their skin.

You fail to see the very diverse opinions of religious people on this very board, let alone the world at large. Sope Creek is a regular church attendee and yet he views the world through a lens differently than Van. When you post simple minded bigotry dressed up as a question, do not be shocked when intelligent people can see through it and give the question the attention it deserves.

 

[Cortez88]

The Pastor probably thinks that trying to discuss these topics with someone so clearly bigoted against religion as you is a fools errand.

You have an opinion and you seek out information to support your opinion. What you do is no different than a racist who does not like black people and then backs up his dislike by combing the internet for articles about individual blacks behaving badly and then conflates it to everyone with a set percentage of melanin in their skin.

You fail to see the very diverse opinions of religious people on this very board, let alone the world at large. Sope Creek is a regular church attendee and yet he views the world through a lens differently than Van. When you post simple minded bigotry dressed up as a question, do not be shocked when intelligent people can see through it and give the question the attention it deserves.

Uh. I think you missed the big bigotry part of the post. You know, leaving open hanging gay folks.

Whether under color of religion, political party or Packers fan, if a person says and does hateful terrible things, they can be called out. This person pushing this bill seems like a pretty awful human. He doesn’t get to hide behind his religion to shield him from the flack that comes from being awful.

 

[37Hoosier]

The Pastor probably thinks that trying to discuss these topics with someone so clearly bigoted against religion as you is a fools errand.

You have an opinion and you seek out information to support your opinion. What you do is no different than a racist who does not like black people and then backs up his dislike by combing the internet for articles about individual blacks behaving badly and then conflates it to everyone with a set percentage of melanin in their skin.

You fail to see the very diverse opinions of religious people on this very board, let alone the world at large. Sope Creek is a regular church attendee and yet he views the world through a lens differently than Van. When you post simple minded bigotry dressed up as a question, do not be shocked when intelligent people can see through it and give the question the attention it deserves.

Lol, good one, the ole reverse psychology...you are intolerant of racist bigots hiding behind religion so you must be an intolerant bigot. I think you have the talking points down perfectly. Religion is fine and dandy by me, for those who actually aspire to you know some of the things Jesus apparently believed in such as tolerance, helping others, respecting others, you know basic citizenship. VPM, as demonstrated on here countless times, while perhaps not as overtly non-religious hateful and bigoted as these extremists none the less aspires to many exclusionary principles himself, that can hardly be denied by his posting. But again, you have the talking points of twisted logic down very nicely...god-speed.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Uh. I think you missed the big bigotry part of the post. You know, leaving open hanging gay folks.

Whether under color of religion, political party or Packers fan, if a person says and does hateful terrible things, they can be called out. This person pushing this bill seems like a pretty awful human. He doesn’t get to hide behind his religion to shield him from the flack that comes from being awful.

I missed nothing. 37 took the point of criticizing this individual and his group and then used that as a tool to beat on Christians in general. And it is not just this one post, he is bigoted towards Christians and religion in general and he trumpets it regularly on this forum.

Would you open a conversation with a Muslim friend and say, "ISIS is hacking the heads off of unbelievers, that is horrible. Why y'all gotta be like that?" 37 never passes up an opportunity to post like that when Christianity is involved. He is in on every chance he can get to be insulting. He is not looking for a discussion, he is looking to ridicule.

He is a bigot. Period.

 

[37Hoosier]

I missed nothing. 37 took the point of criticizing this individual and his group and then used that as a tool to beat on Christians in general. And it is not just this one post, he is bigoted towards Christians and religion in general and he trumpets it regularly on this forum.

Would you open a conversation with a Muslim friend and say, "ISIS is hacking the heads off of unbelievers, that is horrible. Why y'all gotta be like that?" 37 never passes up an opportunity to post like that when Christianity is involved. He is in on every chance he can get to be insulting. He is not looking for a discussion, he is looking to ridicule.

He is a bigot. Period.

Actually I would open a conversation with that, as it is horrible. Actually 37 doesn't like using religion to advance bigotry and I will call that out all day long. I believe it is a fairly important item to note that a so-called religious order is attempting to codify that intolerance towards a specific sub-group of people is really an ok thing.

Should you be concerned and speaking up as well?

Yes, I will always ridicule those attempting to hide their hate and bigotry towards other with religion as the vehicle, should you be as well? I mean if you are a Christian and truly believe in Jesus should you not be at the forefront of "ridiculing" this type of behavior instead of couching your opposition as a "reverse type of discrimination" which is grade school stupid?

Christianity if fine by me, but using any type of religious belief to justify what the so-called "Liberty Counsel" is proposing is abhorrent and should be "ridiculed" whole heartedly and first off by Christians. Where is your voice on that?

I do not hold VPM up as any type of Christian I would follow as an example, that is my choice which is backed up by solid evidence...his own words. Funny you have yet to call out this idea by the this "so-called" Christian organization as wrong and abhorrent...telling about your "so - called" religious freedom stance I would think. Twisted logic.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The Pastor probably thinks that trying to discuss these topics with someone so clearly bigoted against religion as you is a fools errand.

You have an opinion and you seek out information to support your opinion. What you do is no different than a racist who does not like black people and then backs up his dislike by combing the internet for articles about individual blacks behaving badly and then conflates it to everyone with a set percentage of melanin in their skin.

You fail to see the very diverse opinions of religious people on this very board, let alone the world at large. Sope Creek is a regular church attendee and yet he views the world through a lens differently than Van. When you post simple minded bigotry dressed up as a question, do not be shocked when intelligent people can see through it and give the question the attention it deserves.

Ironically, I have a much harder time accepting different POVs from those that are deeply religious. I simply do not see the world in the way that they do and am unable to understand the defiance of logic. However, I would be better served of course if I were to find a way to understand these POVs.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Uh. I think you missed the big bigotry part of the post. You know, leaving open hanging gay folks.

Whether under color of religion, political party or Packers fan, if a person says and does hateful terrible things, they can be called out. This person pushing this bill seems like a pretty awful human. He doesn’t get to hide behind his religion to shield him from the flack that comes from being awful.

They always play the victim card. Just leave it.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Ironically, I have a much harder time accepting different POVs from those that are deeply religious. I simply do not see the world in the way that they do and am unable to understand the defiance of logic. However, I would be better served of course if I were to find a way to understand these POVs.

Do you find yourself agreeing with me on things at times? I am fairly religious and hold several beliefs that were instilled in a fairly conservative Christian denomination (Nazarene and Wesleyan). You will not always find logic in matters of faith but there exists plenty of logic in many of the topics we discuss.

Faith is a different topic. There are ways to approach that without coming across as a jerk...

 

[cosmickid]

Would you open a conversation with a Muslim friend and say, "ISIS is hacking the heads off of unbelievers, that is horrible. Why y'all gotta be like that?"

You do realize that the OVERWHELMING number of victims of ISIS terror,and the reason they were spawned in the first place are "heretic" Muslims,right? The very people that members of this board would be most likely to encounter and be friends with... So yes,I think that conversation is VERY realistic, in terms of "Muslim friends" being extremely willing to denounce ISIS...

Doesn't say a lot for the values of "Christians" who refuse to denounce the evil inherent in the position/language of Stavers and his "Liberty" Counsel... IMHO...

 

[IUCrazy2]

Actually I would open a conversation with that, as it is horrible. Actually 37 doesn't like using religion to advance bigotry and I will call that out all day long. I believe it is a fairly important item to note that a so-called religious order is attempting to codify that intolerance towards a specific sub-group of people is really an ok thing.

Should you be concerned and speaking up as well?

Yes, I will always ridicule those attempting to hide their hate and bigotry towards other with religion as the vehicle, should you be as well? I mean if you are a Christian and truly believe in Jesus should you not be at the forefront of "ridiculing" this type of behavior instead of couching your opposition as a "reverse type of discrimination" which is grade school stupid?

Christianity if fine by me, but using any type of religious belief to justify what the so-called "Liberty Counsel" is proposing is abhorrent and should be "ridiculed" whole heartedly and first off by Christians. Where is your voice on that?

I do not hold VPM up as any type of Christian I would follow as an example, that is my choice which is backed up by solid evidence...his own words. Funny you have yet to call out this idea by the this "so-called" Christian organization as wrong and abhorrent...telling about your "so - called" religious freedom stance I would think. Twisted logic.

Why would I be speaking out against this group to you on a forum where A)you are not a part of the group and have a motive beyond just the criticism of this group and B)no one else that I know of on this forum is a member of the group either.

I don't agree with their position. There are things I disagree with for many of the denominations. I don't feel the need to rush out and denounce some group that you want to attach to "my side" on a forum where that message is not going to be heard by anyone that matters. You are just wanting to play a silly game where you tar and feather those you disagree with by finding extreme examples of people who share beliefs with them. Do you feel the need to defend every atheist or humanist or liberal or Democrat acting stupidly? Particularly if they are advocating something you are not? Neither do I.

The day that someone on "my side" shows up on the forum talking about lynching gay people be assured I will disagree. Just like I have with Van at times when I think he has gone off track. And I don't always move to jump on people when I disagree with them. I'm not the thought police looking to write citations for "wrong think".

 

[IUCrazy2]

You do realize that the OVERWHELMING number of victims of ISIS terror,and the reason they were spawned in the first place are "heretic" Muslims,right? The very people that members of this board would be most likely to encounter and be friends with... So yes,I think that conversation is VERY realistic, in terms of "Muslim friends" being extremely willing to denounce ISIS...

Doesn't say a lot for the values of "Christians" who refuse to denounce the evil inherent in the position/language of Stavers and his "Liberty" Counsel... IMHO...

Your entire first paragraph does nothing to refute my point. Read my question again. It is insulting to ask people who do not run around chopping people's heads off why they are like those other people who do because they profess to share the same religion. In other words, it is kind of a dick move to go up to a Muslim and ask why they all gotta be blowing themselves up all the time.

As far as Stavers, half the people you guys bring up as people I should be denouncing on these forums are people I have never heard of. Why on earth would I be denouncing Stavers to anyone I come in contact with? Before 37 posted the article, had you heard of him? I do not agree with him. Can you point to anyone on the forum that you know does? Denouncing him to you does what for either of us?

Again, this is just a silly partisan hack game.

 

[37Hoosier]

Why would I be speaking out against this group to you on a forum where A)you are not a part of the group and have a motive beyond just the criticism of this group and B)no one else that I know of on this forum is a member of the group either.

I don't agree with their position. There are things I disagree with for many of the denominations. I don't feel the need to rush out and denounce some group that you want to attach to "my side" on a forum where that message is not going to be heard by anyone that matters. You are just wanting to play a silly game where you tar and feather those you disagree with by finding extreme examples of people who share beliefs with them. Do you feel the need to defend every atheist or humanist or liberal or Democrat acting stupidly? Particularly if they are advocating something you are not? Neither do I.

The day that someone on "my side" shows up on the forum talking about lynching gay people be assured I will disagree. Just like I have with Van at times when I think he has gone off track. And I don't always move to jump on people when I disagree with them. I'm not the thought police looking to write citations for "wrong think".

Lol, nice deflection.

Because people post things on forums that is in the public domain...this article was on the NBC news site and I found it particularly disturbing. Since when do you have to be "part of the group" to discuss said abhorrent group. By those standards would it take a vow to the KKK to discuss their cowardness?

I had no idea you "had a side", but by your apparent lack of disapproval for their ridiculous stand against American citizens (or not I assume) you must. Your silence on the heart of the matter, by focusing on religion instead of religious bigotry is all the defense these morons need.

So they need to "show up" here to denounce their words and intent for you to act. By that logic lynching someone out of your site may qualify as being ok?

As far as the thought police comment....you sure did a nice job by policing my thoughts on religious bigotry and hatred ... but staying silent on those promoting it under the guise of "I don't feel the need"...is that the same as o well, maybe it is ok? Silence can be a deadly form of agreement for some.

 

[iu_a_att]

The Pastor probably thinks that trying to discuss these topics with someone so clearly bigoted against religion as you is a fools errand.

You have an opinion and you seek out information to support your opinion. What you do is no different than a racist who does not like black people and then backs up his dislike by combing the internet for articles about individual blacks behaving badly and then conflates it to everyone with a set percentage of melanin in their skin.

You fail to see the very diverse opinions of religious people on this very board, let alone the world at large. Sope Creek is a regular church attendee and yet he views the world through a lens differently than Van. When you post simple minded bigotry dressed up as a question, do not be shocked when intelligent people can see through it and give the question the attention it deserves.

There is a set of people who claim to be standing up for Christian values and who advocate governmental discrimination against LGBTQ. The OP identifies one such group and calls them out for bald-faced bigotry. Calling out bigotry is not bigotry.

Bigotry, an animus directed at outgroups, is a feature of some substantial minority of humans. Those whose outlook is most defined by such animus are called the political "right". In the service of its political agenda the right seeks always to justify and found its bigotry in some more generally accepted philosophical or moral structure. Religious variants of the right attempt to ground their bigotry in the majority accepted religious tradition of their society. In more secular societies the right attempts to leverage science as justification. In mixed societies we see both variants. In all these variants it is the bigotry that is truly pivotal not the religion or the science. We are wise not to discredit either science or religion on the account of bigots who attempt to hijack and exploit it. We should not confuse such bigots with authentic religious believers or with scientists.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Do you find yourself agreeing with me on things at times? I am fairly religious and hold several beliefs that were instilled in a fairly conservative Christian denomination (Nazarene and Wesleyan). You will not always find logic in matters of faith but there exists plenty of logic in many of the topics we discuss.

Faith is a different topic. There are ways to approach that without coming across as a jerk...

True, but you seem to have a pragmatic approach, even if it is influenced by faith. I'm talking about those that establish their thoughts and beliefs based on religion. I know you hold it close (our pro-life/pro-choice discussions), but that is different to me.

By the way, just because someone has a belief based on religion doesn't mean that I would always disagree with that belief. I just wouldn't use religion as the grounds for my belief whereas that person does.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Lol, nice deflection.

Because people post things on forums that is in the public domain...this article was on the NBC news site and I found it particularly disturbing. Since when do you have to be "part of the group" to discuss said abhorrent group. By those standards would it take a vow to the KKK to discuss their cowardness?

I had no idea you "had a side", but by your apparent lack of disapproval for their ridiculous stand against American citizens (or not I assume) you must. Your silence on the heart of the matter, by focusing on religion instead of religious bigotry is all the defense these morons need.

So they need to "show up" here to denounce their words and intent for you to act. By that logic lynching someone out of your site may qualify as being ok?

As far as the thought police comment....you sure did a nice job by policing my thoughts on religious bigotry and hatred ... but staying silent on those promoting it under the guise of "I don't feel the need"...is that the same as o well, maybe it is ok? Silence can be a deadly form of agreement for some.

That is all platitudes 37.

Denouncing those people is just you demanding I virtue signal to the beat of your drum. I am not interested in pulling up articles every day of people that we should each denounce. I do not owe you an explanation each time you find someone misbehaving. I can deal with the here and now which is your bias against Christians.

 

[IUCrazy2]

True, but you seem to have a pragmatic approach, even if it is influenced by faith. I'm talking about those that establish their thoughts and beliefs based on religion. I know you hold it close (our pro-life/pro-choice discussions), but that is different to me.

By the way, just because someone has a belief based on religion doesn't mean that I would always disagree with that belief. I just wouldn't use religion as the grounds for my belief whereas that person does.

I know, there is a difference between not understanding and being disrespectful and disagreeing and being a jerk about it. You and 37 represent opposite ends of that spectrum.

I think religious people are like anyone else, their thoughts and opinions are influenced by the totality of their experiences. Religious views are just one piece of it. Many of my religious views coexist with other logic that form my opinions.

I have a religious view on abortion and I have a view that is shaped by science and a view shaped by political philosophy. For someone like you I would not pull the religious arrow out of my quiver, I would appeal to something where we may hold common ground and common understanding instead.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Ironically, I have a much harder time accepting different POVs from those that are deeply religious. I simply do not see the world in the way that they do and am unable to understand the defiance of logic. However, I would be better served of course if I were to find a way to understand these POVs.

It’s actually very easy to understand why religious people have that lens. The human condition is a son-of-a-bitch and it’s not fair to give people a hard time for seeking solace in something that assuages the difficulties.

It’s hard though, to understand how to get them to view policy and non-conforming ideas without that lens. I think that’s what you’re getting at.

 

[37Hoosier]

That is all platitudes 37.

Denouncing those people is just you demanding I virtue signal to the beat of your drum. I am not interested in pulling up articles every day of people that we should each denounce. I do not owe you an explanation each time you find someone misbehaving. I can deal with the here and now which is your bias against Christians.

If you think those guys are Christians it says more about you than me...a whole lot more and it isnt real pretty...lol. Hmmmm, ya never did really disavow that whole lynching thing tho, regardless of your misconceptions of my view on Christians. Lol, good day.

 

[toastedbread]

Ironically, I have a much harder time accepting different POVs from those that are deeply religious. I simply do not see the world in the way that they do and am unable to understand the defiance of logic. However, I would be better served of course if I were to find a way to understand these POVs.

You must hate Mike Pompeo. His entire world view is based on the rapture.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

You must hate Mike Pompeo. His entire world view is based on the rapture.

I certainly don't see the world in the same way he does. I respect most that work for CIA, FBI, etc., but wonder how they could be effective if they were very religious (moral implications, etc.)

 

[i'vegotwinners]

of the Liberty Counsel which is a evangelical group is lobbying congress to strip all language and protections from the unanimously Senate passed federal anti-lynching bill that would afford any protections to those folks who are anything but straight 8. But hey, at least they have progressed enough to admit we shouldn't just randomly hang those of different colors....maybe, and there was most likely some heated debate on that topic in the "counsel".

As the chairman says; "the old saying once that camel gets the nose in the tent you cant stop them from coming the rest of the way in"...I mean god forbid we discourage lynching others for living their lives as they choose. I mean the "Liberty" Counsel, as usual with right wing groups, only seeks liberty for those who meet the litmus test of religious intolerance. When I see the words Liberty, Patriotism, or Freedom associated with right wing groups, well, somebody is gonna get screwed..

He further stated that; " This is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill & then to sort of circle the wagon & go for the juggler @ some time in the future"...WOW, this guy has strategy all figured out. I am not sure what "it" is exactly and what "juggler" these American citizens are going for but I did notice he used some of the Orange Idiots terminology with his "so-called" reference. The Donald Trump University of strategic thinking on display right thar!

Not surprisingly the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the "so-called" Liberty Counsel as a hate group for not recognizing lynching as "the bias motivated act of terror that it is".

Maybe VPM can chime in with some counsel on why some are "hard hearted" towards religion or maybe even cite some bible passages to support this group? He took off pretty quick on his religious historical artifacts thread the other day. I wonder why religion in general is so hung up on sex & who is doing who...must go back to that whole virgin had a baby thing, I dunno.

link to a credible source please.

no idea who this group is you refer to, but i have a hard time believing they are doing what you say they are doing.

 

[37Hoosier]

link to a credible source please.

no idea who this group is you refer to, but i have a hard time believing they are doing what you say they are doing.

Right there on the front page of NBC news site...quotes and all. Believe what you will.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The Pastor probably thinks that trying to discuss these topics with someone so clearly bigoted against religion as you is a fools errand.

You have an opinion and you seek out information to support your opinion. What you do is no different than a racist who does not like black people and then backs up his dislike by combing the internet for articles about individual blacks behaving badly and then conflates it to everyone with a set percentage of melanin in their skin.

You fail to see the very diverse opinions of religious people on this very board, let alone the world at large. Sope Creek is a regular church attendee and yet he views the world through a lens differently than Van. When you post simple minded bigotry dressed up as a question, do not be shocked when intelligent people can see through it and give the question the attention it deserves.

While I agree with your points about the breadth of religion, you're missing the mark here regarding 37's post. He's not displaying bigotry. His attack on VPM in his OP was inappropriate, and if I were still mod, I would have deleted it. Although, let's be honest, VPM brings a lot of that on himself.

Regardless, the point of 37's post is a valid one. These people are genuine hateful bigots, and they are in a position to attempt to influence policy. Perhaps they can even make ground with the elected bigots, like Steve King, who today wondered when "white supremacist" became offensive. Nowhere in 37's post did he conflate these hateful bigots with Christians generally. He's calling attention to and criticizing people who clearly deserve to be criticized. 37 was not the one displaying the bigotry.

 

[cosmickid]

Your entire first paragraph does nothing to refute my point. Read my question again. It is insulting to ask people who do not run around chopping people's heads off why they are like those other people who do because they profess to share the same religion. In other words, it is kind of a dick move to go up to a Muslim and ask why they all gotta be blowing themselves up all the time.

As far as Stavers, half the people you guys bring up as people I should be denouncing on these forums are people I have never heard of. Why on earth would I be denouncing Stavers to anyone I come in contact with? Before 37 posted the article, had you heard of him? I do not agree with him. Can you point to anyone on the forum that you know does? Denouncing him to you does what for either of us?

Again, this is just a silly partisan hack game.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mike Huckabee (left), Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and Staver, her lawyer, after her release from jail in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky.

I think most of us had heard of Staver, since we had threads on snake worshiper Kim Davis and he was her "lawyer"...Again I don't think most mainstream Muslims have an issue condemning Isis for "chopping people's heads off", because the majority of people who were victimized by Isis were mainstream Muslims, not Western Non-Muslim captives...

While we don't KNOW VPM's feelings on Staver and the subject at hand, we can make a pretty strong inference,based on his posting history. Staver and his ilk had no problem with Davis violating her duties as a public servant and trying to deny people their right to marry based on sexual orientation.

Gotwinners says he has a hard time believing that Staver is trying to get sexual orientation removed as a protection in the Federal anti-Lynching law that Congress passed unanimously 3 mos ago. I have no idea why winners has such a hard time believing it, given Staver's track record on anything regarding LGBTQ rights. Prior to supporting Davis, Staver and Liberty Counsel were deeply involved in promoting the forces in Uganda who were pushing for the "Kill the Gays" bill.

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article...ht-exports-gay-hate-uganda110413/#gs.S5Ut8Dyb

 

[NPT]

True, but you seem to have a pragmatic approach, even if it is influenced by faith. I'm talking about those that establish their thoughts and beliefs based on religion. I know you hold it close (our pro-life/pro-choice discussions), but that is different to me.

By the way, just because someone has a belief based on religion doesn't mean that I would always disagree with that belief. I just wouldn't use religion as the grounds for my belief whereas that person does.

What I've never understood is why people treat an opinion based on religion different from opinions that are not. For example, if someone states that they are against abortion based on what the Bible says and someone else just states that they are against abortion just because they think it's wrong the person who's opinion is based on the Bible will be treated completely different than the other person.

 

[IUCrazy2]

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mike Huckabee (left), Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and Staver, her lawyer, after her release from jail in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky.

I think most of us had heard of Staver, since we had threads on snake worshiper Kim Davis and he was her "lawyer"...Again I don't think most mainstream Muslims have an issue condemning Isis for "chopping people's heads off", because the majority of people who were victimized by Isis were mainstream Muslims, not Western Non-Muslim captives...

While we don't KNOW VPM's feelings on Staver and the subject at hand, we can make a pretty strong inference,based on his posting history. Staver and his ilk had no problem with Davis violating her duties as a public servant and trying to deny people their right to marry based on sexual orientation.

Gotwinners says he has a hard time believing that Staver is trying to get sexual orientation removed as a protection in the Federal anti-Lynching law that Congress passed unanimously 3 mos ago. I have no idea why winners has such a hard time believing it, given Staver's track record on anything regarding LGBTQ rights. Prior to supporting Davis, Staver and Liberty Counsel were deeply involved in promoting the forces in Uganda who were pushing for the "Kill the Gays" bill.

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article...ht-exports-gay-hate-uganda110413/#gs.S5Ut8Dyb

Before the O.P. I could have posted a poll a week ago and asked if anyone could tell me who Staver was and what his group stood for (without doing an internet search) and I would be willing to bet that not 1 person on this board would have been able to.

We did not all know who he was regardless of him being a bit player in a large story that occurred 4 years ago.

 

[UncleMark]

...if someone states that they are against abortion based on what the Bible says and someone else just states that they are against abortion just because they think it's wrong the person who's opinion is based on the Bible will be treated completely different than the other person.

Perhaps it's because the person citing the Bible makes the case that that makes their opinion Right and in accordance with God, whereas the person who just states his position as his personal opinion isn't claiming to be backed up by God.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Right there on the front page of NBC news site...quotes and all. Believe what you will.

didn't notice the article on the front page, although the front page seemed to be never ending.

perhaps you or someone could provide a link.

 

[Stuffshot]

What I've never understood is why people treat an opinion based on religion different from opinions that are not. For example, if someone states that they are against abortion based on what the Bible says and someone else just states that they are against abortion just because they think it's wrong the person who's opinion is based on the Bible will be treated completely different than the other person.

Because "if someone states that they are against abortion based on what the Bible says ", this means you are getting both insulted and proselytized whether you realize it or not. Many Christian denominations don't proselytize aggressively, so you may not have experienced it. But evangelicals do, using the Bible as a tool. Making that statement is essentially saying (1) the Bible is infallible, (2) they're the only ones who know what the Bible means because they consider themselves to be experts and (3) everybody else is wrong because they disagree with the Bible.

It's an insulting form of debate because it's telling you "I'm right and you're wrong and there's nothing more to discuss." What other reason could they have to go out of their way to mention the Bible?

 

[NPT]

It's an insulting form of debate because it's telling you "I'm right and you're wrong and there's nothing more to discuss." What other reason could they have to go out of their way to mention the Bible?

Had to chuckle at that statement because that's about 90% of what you get on the cooler and most of it has nothing to do with the Bible..

 

[IUCrazy2]

Had to chuckle at that statement because that's about 90% of what you get on the cooler and most of it has nothing to do with the Bible..

Co-flipping-sign