[flamehunter]

I agree on letting states decide. As for the gays in our churches, there are no laws, yet... If you don't think they will be be coming in the not too distant future, think again.

[jbock13]

slippery slope fallacy.

I agree with everyone here, the church has a right to prevent gays from serving in leadership. But does the church have the right to legislate morality? As a historian, God save us if that ever happens. The church is made up of fallible men, as Jefferson stated. That's why he wanted to separate the two. Not because he was an atheist. But because he knew that some of the most bloody attacks in history have been over religion. Yes, the government is fallible, but there's more of an opportunity for man to have his concerns heard, rather than being called a heretic and executed on spot.

And as a historian, this is why I feel the way I do on this.

[jmdickens]

I agree on letting states decide. As for the gays in our churches, there are no laws, yet... If you don't think they will be be coming in the not too distant future, think again.

Why do you say this???? What evidence leads you to believe that the Federal government is going to enact a law that forced churches or any religion institution to have someone that they are opposed with serve as one of their leaders.

[Sly Fox]

We are clearly moving toward the point where it will be considered a civil rights violation to remove someone from a position based on sexual preference.

[flamehunter]

When we say legislate morality, images of laws requiring swimsuits below the knees and outlawing cursing come to mind. Or requiring everyone to become a Christian and outlawing other religions. Those were the mistakes of the past and of many islamic countries today. And Jbock, no one I think wants churches to do that. What we do want is to be able express our views and encourage lawmakers to pass laws that do not contradict biblical truths. We should strive to provide some type of moral compass, not a moral sledgehammer.

Oh, as to the title of this thread, right now I would say Romney provides the best chance. And I am kind of holding my nose when I say that.

[Purple Haize]

We are clearly moving toward the point where it will be considered a civil rights violation to remove someone from a position based on sexual preference.

It pretty much already is. I do think that as much as it is tried, you want be able to legislate it for religious entities.

[ALUmnus]

That is when you mention the first amendment. That is a dangerous slippery slope argument to make that because we dont believe doing it on the Federal level does not mean we no longer have the ability to educate people on when life begins and when it starts having inalienable rights. It comes through education, and that means teaching that life has an inherent value. That means all life, not just the unborn child. It means the elderly that we wont help. It means soldiers we send to die for political purposes. It includes those we send to prison for petty crimes.

So much of that paragraph is just ridiculous, but the one that made me laugh is about educating people about the value of life. Who educates the overwhelming majority of the population? How can you teach about the value of life when it's legal and encouraged by our very own government and media to have abortions?

I cannot for the life of me understand why this has become and either/or situation. "no, no, we can't use politics at all, we must change their hearts". Yeah, we've been losing that battle for about a century now. There is nothing wrong with doing both.

[jbock13]

And Jbock, no one I think wants churches to do that.

Oh you'd be surprised. Not you of course, but there are plenty of people who are openly wishing a theocracy.

David Barton would be one. I can't say the second due to my stature here but I can tell you he has been named before on here.

[Purple Haize]

And Jbock, no one I think wants churches to do that.

Oh you'd be surprised. Not you of course, but there are plenty of people who are openly wishing a theocracy.

David Barton would be one. I can't say the second due to my stature here but I can tell you he has been named before on here.

Benny Hinn? Mitt Romney? BJ?

[jbock13]

no. he's in the Liberty community.

Having read one of David Barton books, he seems to be saying that the 1st amendment was created so the federal government could not infringe upon the states' church. Hmm okay?

[Purple Haize]

no. he's in the Liberty community.

Having read one of David Barton books, he seems to be saying that the 1st amendment was created so the federal government could not infringe upon the states' church. Hmm okay?

They have all been mentioned in this thread Ha.
Hmm BJ is is this thread and part of the LU community
Sarah Palin Herman Cain Newt Gingrich Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman have been mentioned in this thread and have spoken at Liberty.

[BJWilliams]

no. he's in the Liberty community.

Having read one of David Barton books, he seems to be saying that the 1st amendment was created so the federal government could not infringe upon the states' church. Hmm okay?

They have all been mentioned in this thread Ha.
Hmm BJ is is this thread and part of the LU community
Sarah Palin Herman Cain Newt Gingrich Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman have been mentioned in this thread and have spoken at Liberty.

Its not me...1) I hate politics and 2) Im pretty sure Im not so famous that even if I WANTED a theocracy that people would have to keep my name out of the public eye

[jmdickens]

That is when you mention the first amendment. That is a dangerous slippery slope argument to make that because we dont believe doing it on the Federal level does not mean we no longer have the ability to educate people on when life begins and when it starts having inalienable rights. It comes through education, and that means teaching that life has an inherent value. That means all life, not just the unborn child. It means the elderly that we wont help. It means soldiers we send to die for political purposes. It includes those we send to prison for petty crimes.

So much of that paragraph is just ridiculous, but the one that made me laugh is about educating people about the value of life. Who educates the overwhelming majority of the population? How can you teach about the value of life when it's legal and encouraged by our very own government and media to have abortions?

I cannot for the life of me understand why this has become and either/or situation. "no, no, we can't use politics at all, we must change their hearts". Yeah, we've been losing that battle for about a century now. There is nothing wrong with doing both.

I am glad that you think educating people is ridiculous. Instead we allow them to have freedoms or moral views that only we find to be tolerable... That seems to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

You have proven the very point I am making. Let the states make the decision and then you don't have to worry about the media. You are correct about our government, nothing our federal government does shows a value for life. War, money and power. Also clearly a result of the heart.

How does forcing people to have our views or be punished criminally for being gay or having an abortion going to further the cause for Christ? It doesn't, but merely makes us feel better that we point at others and say "i told you so"......

[LUconn]

How does forcing people to have our views or be punished criminally for having an abortion going to further the cause for Christ?

IT SAVES A LIFE. or punishes for having taken one. Do you not believe that there is a life in the womb?




Murder is immoral. There are laws against murder. Stealing is immoral. There are laws against stealing. Our morality has been legislated. Anarchists find these things tolerable. Should we legalize these things in favor of educating people about the misgivings of those acts?

[jbock13]

Yeah its nobody who posts on here.

[jmdickens]

How does forcing people to have our views or be punished criminally for having an abortion going to further the cause for Christ?

IT SAVES A LIFE. or punishes for having taken one. Do you not believe that there is a life in the womb?


Murder is immoral. There are laws against murder. Stealing is immoral. There are laws against stealing. Our morality has been legislated. Anarchists find these things tolerable. Should we legalize these things in favor of educating people about the misgivings of those acts?

I believe life begins 100% at conception, yes!! however, our current course will not work. Due Process will always reign when this is discussed as a federal issue. Thus the problem with big government. If this was a state issue, abortions being illegal would not be overturned because in our current ability to travel anywhere no one would be denied a "right" to have an abortion in a state where it is legal. Then, if all states made it illegal for abortions, then the law of the land would have to be the overall outlawing of abortions......

The courts go by Stare Decisis as what is precedent in deciding court cases...the supreme court could use First Impression to take a second look at an earlier decision, but that will not happen with the current argument of "it is a life" when the current medical and scientific leaders all say it isn't a life.

Also, back to some of our so called Judeo-Christian laws, Jewish tradition is held that life does not begin until a child is 30 days old. Talk about deep roots!!! But even left-wing christians make arguments about the Bible supporting the idea of life and having a soul being different stages and support a woman's choice of having an abortion.

It is a sad reality, but until we educate people to truly believe in the inherent value of life in everything that we do, abortions will still be accepted to the general public.

[ALUmnus]

Also, back to some of our so called Judeo-Christian laws, Jewish tradition is held that life does not begin until a child is 30 days old. Talk about deep roots!!!

Jewish tradition is not Biblical Judaism (I know, bad term, but you know what I mean).

[ALUmnus]

Back on topic...

I'm really glad for all these debates they're having, it's really exposed some of these candidates. For me, the more I hear Herman Cain in these things, the less I want him to be president. He's really unprepared to make any important decisions and hasn't thought out anything other than his tax plan. Which is too bad because I really like him and know he wants nothing more than to promote conservatism, but he totally lacks any substance when it comes to specifics. We already have a president with those qualities. I just don't think I can vote for him, unless he's the nominee.

[RubberMallet]

I just don't think I can vote for him, unless he's the nominee.

WAT

[Purple Haize]

I think he is saying that he can't vote for him in the primary but if he IS the nominee then he would not have a problem voting for him over Obama or staying home

[jbock13]

If I may just voice my two cents, I think debates are highly overrated. How many times have you heard somebody promise something in debates, only to be let down? (as if politicians keep promises).

To me, it's not about giving the best answer in the best amount of words. It's about me, examining your record, and judging from that.

Listen to Romney. Listen to Gingrich. They are saying all the right things. But does history show that they do the right things when trusted with their power? Absolutely not. Perhaps they have changed? We shall see, but I still don't like the picture of Gingrich and Pelosi cuddling on the couch.

I'm not a Ron Paul guy as you all know, but he's the only one in this race who truly walks the walk, and lives what he says. That's admirable to me, and it might just cause me to vote for him in the Primary.

[thepostman]

WHAT!!!?? You must be smoking something...I mean in order to vote for Ron Paul you would have to be right??? haha

[jmdickens]

Newt is leading in the polls!!!! how can people who call themselves Christians support him? Why do we have no spines?

[jbock13]

For me, its not even about his moral failures. But we're already had this discussion lol

[jmdickens]

I had a friend from LU law who was all about Cain, then the scandals....Then he was all about Perry, then the debate. Now he is all about NEWT...

Some people really are blinded by that (R) next to a name. That is the problem with the 2 party system