Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
KNHav
| Reward Points: | 1957 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 97% |
| Arguments: | 4199 |
| Debates: | 40 |
On the contrary it's the truest text ever written.
If you have eyes to see it, and a heart to understand it. It has no contradictions and the depth of it. It's the path of great wisdom. With oracles spoken with a few simple texts.
I read it and it's fluid. Literally like Water!
Jesus said come to the Living Water. I've experienced that in that book. Oh my God such depth!
You are saddlly mistaken about the Bible and about God!
What would it be like if God didn't really exist?
What if there was no Maximality, no Maximum Greatness, no Maximum Potential, and no Maximum Excellence to give form to abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?
Who then created abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?
Actually it is the burden of science and all those who oppose Creation to fully substantiate their clam before filing any exclusivity in teaching that claim. Since both are ultimately in the end a belief in the 1st act of creation.
So its a claim forced through legal process of atheists using a science that at its very beginning is exactly the same as creation by an act of God, or an act of nothing! Boylth have burden of proof.
Atheists need to prove the nothing or both have equal place to be taught in every place side by side so the student can decide without bias to 1 belief over the other!!!!
Nothing exists if No-Maximality is exemplified ...
Before you answer or debate anything I say, respond to these questions first.
Without using any words like "but"
Should everyone have rites and freedom to live with allegiance to their own conscience?
Should parents have the rite and freedom to raise their children according to morals and values without interference from government and/or schools?
If any law created breached these freedoms and rites, would that law be unconstitutional?
It is irresponsible for Judges and law makers to pass a law, like Gay Marriage, without considering potential difficulties and consequences to society in the aftermath of the ruling and its total impact, the possible effects on all the other groups, in every demographics, businesses, schools, media content, children’s programing etc should be considered for the general welfare of all.
No law should ever pass that will cause society as a whole to suffer, and conflict with a healthy balance of morality and religion, and the natural behavior of most.
Our religious freedom can only protect us on an individual bases at best. There is little, if any, action we can take to keep it separated from our us and our children.
By passing this, you all said, "parents have less rights , and no rites to raise children according to their own values and beliefs!
States - New Religious Freedom Bill Gives Small Business Owners Right To Annul Any Gay Marriage
I'm pretty sure they already had the rite to turn away gay marriage. Its all the heterosexuals in that age group who will side, and the business gets to suffer persecution for faith. As businesses particuarly wedding businesses are put in harms way by this Supreme Court ruling.
Example:
If we choose NOT to provide services for gay weddings, we may be taken to court. We will incur cost, lost time, and aggravation. AND, our businesses will most likely suffer damages by public opinion. Where as, before this law was passed, we reserved to run our business according to our own business model, and be true to ourselves, our integrity, and our own moral consciences.
And by providing great service, treating our clients professionally, and delivering an excellent product, we could reasonably expect business growth and hopefully many referrals through word of mouth from happy customers. All while upholding our own values that we live by, our “privately” held positions had no need to be public, and were kept private unless shared by choice. BUT now, this law will shame you!
Your once discretely held position is no longer a private matter, but instead has become a highly publicized position because of a ruling, that will inevitably damage your business!
So then, whether you are signaled out and locally publicized, or nationally publicized, or even if asked in standard interview questions by couples who are comparing services, all of these scenarios are equally damaging.
Heterosexual couples getting engaged, who were going to be your future clients through referrals, and because you established an excellent reputation will likely go elsewhere on a basis of personal moral values. And your personal value shouldn’t be forced into public scrutiny.
Our businesses can suffer great damages, as future clients we depend on to support our business and our families go elsewhere in their support of gay marriage.
So then was this law fair, and just, or Constitutional?
What choice did the Supreme Court give to us who do not want an EQUAL presence of unnatural marriage with natural marriage?
This is a crime against citizens!
This is the choice the Supreme Court left wedding related business owners:
Either - Lay down your religious freedom, your rite to personal privately held values, your rite to compete on merit of quality services, your own integrity of conscience, your morals, your political views and opinions,
Or - Let whatever public scorning of your business just happen.
our rites - we have every rite to choose either of these scenarios. Does this sound like rites to anyone?
Is this what American religious freedom looks like?
We should be free to give undisturbed allegiance to our faith, personal morality, and own conscience. And, without interference from government through enforcing laws that cause conflict of our allegiance to Law and Country AND allegiance to our own conscience.
Law should never rule in favor of 1 set of beliefs over the religious beliefs of others.
This is actually a breech of the establishment clause!
One group is made up of gays and their supporters, they have a belief. They believe being Gay, or transgender or other unnatural sexual preferences or identity is a naturally occurring choice, and also may be caused by different arrangements of genes, hormones, brain chemicals, and other physical properties. Many also believe it’s God given. Being Gay is as much a belief of faith as Catholicism, or Presbyterianism.
It’s a belief set of faith regarding origin of sexual preference, gender choice, AND above all it is a MORAL precept in response to a belief!
It is believed by faith, and it is a value based morality and a community belief. It is a faith, since it is as much to question and debate and as difficult to prove as God and creation! And a community of faith is a Religion! Free to exercise yes of course but law of all against others beliefs, NO!
I don't want gays forced into a closet, either. There is a balance.
Anti gay marriage need to address a balance, regardless of personal beliefs. Religion can save and influence, but cant take control of society unfairly. And if we are reasonable in allowing a law of exception for this small group, that is the max measure, but not equal to marriage!
And don’t allow law to use the term marriage in the law but civil union is fine. Let them use marriage as their own preference, but it shouldnt be called the same.
Not only should it No Way be a law making it Equal, it shouldnt even be called marriage in the law, so there is no confusion that it is NOT the same!
This law is unfair to all but gays!
The key is not equal to marriage, by exception for benefits of life partnership like inheritance, survivorship benefits, health benefits, tax laws, etc. But absolutely NOT equality to Marriage.
When society faced progress and some moral loosening, it wasn’t all bad. Overly strict moral codes are not the will of all, it may raise an eyebrow but shouldn’t turn the stomach and sour pursed lips. When Elvis made old ladies gasp with his shaking leg, and hip thrusts, even if shocking, it still was palatable, it didn’t go against our natural inclinations, it was exciting and relatable because it felt natural even if not moral. It was compatible to the inner wild girl inside an 80 year old women.
BUT, Gay Expression and Gay Marriage, isn’t relatable, nor compatible, its offensive to the core of most of our natures who are hetefosexual.
So they forced something on us that IS NOT compatible to society. Live and let live, but it’s a private agreement with law, NOT a public agreement!
Its ONLY palatable to gays, and supporters. So why is it forced into our entire culture? To the rest of society, people in every demographic group, Sr Citizens, families, varieties of religions, and even many secular people feel the insertion is an unwanted intrusion against our natural inclination.
Forcing an unnatural lifestyle onto all other people who are living a natural life style is wrong!
1 - Its Natural vs Un-Natural 2 - It is a Subject of Morality 3 - Its Often a Matter of Religious Freedom of Others 4 - It is Uncomfortable and Distateful to Most as a Whole I’m going to get a little honest, Sorry - its Actually Disgusting to Many 5 - Its Inappropriate to Age Groups Specifically Young Children and Sr Citizens 6 - Its inappropriate to Families.
I cant see how this law could be unconstitutional 1 - its ruled in exclusive favor of 1 specific community, and 2 - it is a law that is a burden of moral conflict for others and 3 - that law is not foundational of basic natural laws, natural order, natural consequence and 4 – not established for the health and common good of all in society in general, or 5 – it will upset the balance of society and have a negative impact on the daily practices and enjoyment of all in general, or 5 – it does not offer reasonable protection and fairness for all citizens equally, or 6 – it takes away reasonable protection and fairness of any other group(s) of citizens, or 7- a law is individually and collectively being experienced with even further projections that are as an impediment to the pursuit of freedoms
Neither
But definitely closer to Capitalism than Socialism
In the USA we are not capitalist, we are free market. We have anti Trust laws that break up monopolies.
Sometimes, especially in our current environment, there is an unfair over correction that is harmful to a business owner. They aren’t big enough to sustain it, but are forced into loosing their businesses because of “a war on capitalism” Like the raisin farmer in California. I believe he won in the Supreme Court, but he didn’t deserve the cost he incurred to stay alive.
These are the people that need protection from this society we are becoming!
I hate to say, I’m not name calling. But that’s just stupid!But if we think its true then it must be. Regardless of history of facts and even the blatant manipulations in our society today.
But keep in mind, without these businesses we'd be far behind in the progress we know and enjoy today. And also they employed much of the population of the day. Although, we did need corrections to improve working conditions, increase safety, and pay higher wages. But the beauty of America isn’t that we were perfect. But the systems we have to correct greed when greed doesn’t correct itself!
We are a land of equal opportunity
Anyone can take an idea and create a successful business, and charge "what the market will bare" and make a living and/or gain wealth.
Many have overcome obstacles for the successes they achieve, with risk.
And as far as inheritance and the hand me down wealth - inheritance tax is probably the highest proportional tax in our society. So if you consider "fair share" we accumulate wealth to provide a better life for our families and to pass to our children.
The starting point, or tipping point varies of both failure and success in over generations. And sometimes it continues as it is for generations without change.
American success is built on ideas, enterprise, risk, and the wants and perceived needs of the general market.
An Informative History Lesson on Capitalism
Many through our history are "capitalist" but not many did so without loss, even bankruptcy.
Here is a Capitalist Parade – And while your at it look at the giving back some of these people did. Do you think that would happen in the USSR or Denmark or Turkey?
Milton Hershey – Drooped out of school, he was a poor student. Apprenticed for 4 years then - after two failed attempts, he set up the Lancaster Caramel Co. sold it then made the worlds largest Choc factory – then built a community and a home and school for children.
Walt Disney - fired by a newspaper editor because, "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas, started a number of businesses that didn't last too long and ended with bankruptcy and failure
Henry Ford – businesses failed and left him broke five times
R H Macy - Macy started seven failed business before finally hitting big with his store in New York City
F W Woolworth - Before starting his own business, young Woolworth worked at a dry goods store and was not allowed to wait on customers because his boss said he lacked the sense needed to do so. I guess he said F... YOU, and opened his own store, followed by successful chains of stores!
Good ole Colonel Sanders and his Fried Chicken - rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant accepted it
Albert Einstein - teachers and parents to think he was mentally handicapped
Thomas Edison - teachers told Edison he was "too stupid to learn anything
Sidney Poitier brutally rejected by American Negro Theater for his heavy Bohamian accent
Others with similar stories - H J Heinz - Emily Dickinson - Lucille Ball - P T Barnum - Fred Astaire - Jerry Seinfeld
http://www.onlinecollege.org/2010/02/16/ 50-famously-successful-people-who-failed-at-first/
And African Americans – Successful in the face of adversity
http://www.theroot.com/photos/2010/02/
Like anything in the social front, with twisting, and media led head hunting, and the public's eagerness to follow without knowledge. Capitalism is redefined, then accepted for whatever they want.
Like the urban racial legends believed with a fury, that Democrats and Republicans switched places. So those Republicans who believed in Civil rights and paid for it putting their money and their lives where their heart was on the matter, are NOW called White Supremacists, while Democrats who were always white supremacists (and also some Black slave owners also) are hailed as civil rights heroes!
Teddy Roosevelt broke up the capitalist in the early 1900's. And it needed to be broken. They built great industry. We are where we are because of them. It was corrected, they kept the wealth they made, but the monopoly was broken and out of 1 came many oil and gas companies, for competitive free market competition. .
|
||||||||||||||||||
