[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Well which side do you fall on? We've had lots of calls on this forum for monitoring mosques and what's preached there. And maybe we should. But then we can't just do it to one religion, we'd have to do it to all. What sort of dominion theology are they preaching in evangelical churches? Are the Jews promulgating hatred against the Palestinians in their synagogues - does the JDF get it's agenda there? Sikh temples - are they still preaching violence for Khalistan? And so on.

Then if that's the case I'd have to err on the side of freedom and say that the government should GTFO of all places of worship. I'd rather risk a mosque organizing for ISIS than allow a secular-humanist regime with an adamantly pro-gay agenda to dictate or intimidate speech anywhere.

[andyt]

What's so special about religion. We know the govt infiltrates environmental and social justice groups. As for those groups - that's got to put a chill on their speech when they meet. We know a good number of white power types have moved to the Smithers region from Idaho - don't we want the govt keeping an eye on them. Those guys often combine religion with their odious beliefs.

And we know (cause the Msm told me) that many mosques import their imams from hard core Islamic countries and they are preaching jihad. I do want the govt to know about this and try to prevent it. But then I want the govt to also know about any nasty stuff coming out of other religions as well, and they can't know unless they look. As I say, the radical Sikhs in BC have actually been pretty open about this, putting the stuff out on radio. Because it's in Punjabi, it just flies under the radar tho, nobody seems to care.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

What's so special about religion?

It's closely personal for the people who believe and we're also very passionate about it.

While I'd never harm anyone or even pressure anyone to adhere to my beliefs I'm afraid I can't say the same if some mayor tried to force her opinions on any pastor or any congregation. Admittedly, it would not be a religious issue I'd be fighting for but an issue of fundamental liberty. I'd never harm someone in the name of religion because what good is your faith if it comes to that? But I've acted in defense of the Constitution and my oath to defend and protect it doesn't have an expiration date.

[BartSimpson]

A thoughtful composition on the current status of these subpoenas:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/10/17/ ... a-scandal/

[andyt]

I don't think religions should be treated any differently than any other organizations. Remove the tax exemptions. If a particular church does charitable work, let them incorporate as such, and only exempt those funds that go to charity, now their nice expensive church, preachers salary, etc. If it's OK to infiltrate other groups that may want to harm society, it should be OK to infiltrate religious groups as well. As Zipper has said, we already have freedom of thought and speech, we don't need a special deal because some of that is called religion.

You should be happy with my proposal Bart. If we force mosques to let in infidels to monitor them, might make our countries a less desirable option for devout Muslims. Of course Jews would have to admit Muslim monitors (if he happens to be one), but then for all I know they already do. And so on.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Remove the tax exemptions.

I'm already on record wanting all tax exemptions ended, all subsidies to individuals ended, and a flat tax with no deductions imposed on all income.

But I am adamantly against government monitoring of places of worship absent a warrant, of course.

That said, the gay mafia is pushing the envelope with this latest assault on places of faith and while I have faith in our system to eventually put this abuse to an end, if it stands in the courts then when what happens to the gay community after that should not come as any surprise.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

Well if you're not squeamish about charter rights, what's your problem with surveillance?

Nice try andy, don't try and turn this back around on me. It's you who wants to stomp all over ingrained rights in your anti-religion crusade, while you constantly defend the rights of even the worst types of criminals.

Our rights are already being seriously infringed upon, particularly the right to privacy, and you want to open that door even wider? Gee, maybe we should make them all get micro-chipped too, that way we can track them and know what they're up to when they're not at a church/temple/mosque. If that goes well, we can all get one.

So then I take it no surveillance of mosques for you?

*sigh* Since you're having obvious problems following a basic conversation, allow me to repeat what you actually quoted me saying.

$1:

I'm not arguing that the state shouldn't go after religious groups who have demonstrated an unappealing zeal in persecuting others and violating basic human rights. I'm arguing against the idea that all religious institutions should be subject to 24/7 internal surveillance.

So basically you want to video wire-tap every church, mosque, synagogue and temple without a warrant or due cause. Yeah, I bet if the cops did that to a criminal suspect you'd be wailing and gnashing your teeth on here about how their Charter rights were violated.
Why is it you're all about Charter rights and due process but are quite willing to throw them by the wayside when it comes to religion? No due process for religious groups, just assume every congregation is guilty of something nefarious and use that as an excuse to grossly violate their rights.

It's funny the amount of flak Bart gets for being a "tighty-righty", yet he's willing to defend the rights of those he doesn't agree with, or so he states anyway. You on the other hand, are more than happy to strip rights away from people you don't agree with under the guise of protecting society. You sound JUST like a good ol' hard-right conservative.

[andyt]

WEll, it's a thorny issue for sure. But, we've already trampled on lots of civil rights after 9/11. Another big, successful attack on US or Canada, and we may change our tune about this too. Of course it will be all about the mosques, but you know how that goes, let the camel's nose under the tent and all. And probably work like gas prices, where, assuming this threat ever ends, there will be all sorts of reasons why we need to keep the infringements on civil rights. Very hard balancing act to get right. And most people, throw a good scare into them, will gladly trade seeming security for freedom any day. Seems to me Yeshua B Josef said something about that, but I forget what.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

But, we've already trampled on lots of civil rights after 9/11.

And that needs to be reversed. As the old adage goes: "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

[stratos]

I am amazed at you Andyt you clearly state in other threads that you want no church influence on the state that the state and church must be separate. Then why are you advocating that the state become involved with church business? You truly seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth here. Do not let any religion have a say in the Gov. or else but it is fine to have the Gov. dictate to any religious group what they can and can not preach upon.

[BartSimpson]

stratos stratos:

I am amazed at you Andyt you clearly state in other threads that you want no church influence on the state that the state and church must be separate. Then why are you advocating that the state become involved with church business? You truly seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth here. Do not let any religion have a say in the Gov. or else but it is fine to have the Gov. dictate to any religious group what they can and can not preach upon.

He's pretty consistent with the general gist of the left.

They advocate for free speech when it allows them to criticize those who are in control. But then as soon as they are in control they impose speech codes and hate speech laws.

Likewise, religious people should be excluded from participating in government because they promote values that the left hates. But then the government should be able to impose values that the left likes on religious people.

[Thanos]

Does saying "please don't use God to encourage your followers to oppress/kill people you don't like" really count as the government wrongly imposing values on religious folk?

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Does saying "please don't use God to encourage your followers to oppress/kill people you don't like" really count as the government wrongly imposing values on religious folk?

Not at all. But having the government vet sermons to make sure they promote the gay agenda absolutely is imposing upon religious freedom.

[Thanos]

I don't disagree, although whats going on in Houston seems more complex than some mama's good boy like Todd Starnes would have people believe. That prick is just another one of Fox's professional liars. I don't doubt that the gays are being obnoxious but it seems more in reaction to some real vitriol and hatred the local fundies are pushing. I remember getting screamed at by these types whenever we went to a metal concert back in the day. Enough of that kind of "you're going to Hell for listening to Ozzy/playing D&D" kind of put me on the side of the queers by default. Leave each other alone is just too complex a philosophy for too many of the dicks out there.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't disagree, although whats going on in Houston seems more complex than some mama's good boy like Todd Starnes would have people believe. That prick is just another one of Fox's professional liars. I don't doubt that the gays are being obnoxious but it seems more in reaction to some real vitriol and hatred the local fundies are pushing. I remember getting screamed at by these types whenever we went to a metal concert back in the day. Enough of that kind of "you're going to Hell for listening to Ozzy/playing D&D" kind of put me on the side of the queers by default. Leave each other alone is just too complex a philosophy for too many of the dicks out there.

So far as I see it in this situation here's what we have:

An openly lesbian mayor advanced a PC code (the 'HERO' law) without public input.

Members of the public then supported a referendum to overturn the HERO law - as is their right.

The city clerk said they have enough valid signatures to put the referendum on the ballot.

The city attorney THEN got involved and started invalidating previously validated signatures for a host of BS reasons until enough signature were invalidated to get the measure off the ballot.

The proponents of the referendum sued over the obvious abuse of power.

The mayor is then abusing the subpoena authority to demand that people who are not participants in the lawsuit should have to produce documentation that is not germane to the lawsuit. That douchebag may as well sue me for this post. The whole purpose of the subpoena abuse is to silence opposition to a militant gay agenda.

The Texas State Attorney General is siding with the pastors. So is the Governor. And if the courts let this stand, then so will the militia. No kidding, that same group that organized the Bundy Ranch resistance is chattering about this issue and a similar issue in Idaho where a pastor is being threatened with prison time and a $1000 per day fine if he refuses to perform gay marriages.

No kidding, I don't mind the live-and-let-live but this sh*t is going too far. If the gays want to act like fundamentalist moslems then they'd better not be surprised when public sympathy goes against them.

On the upside of their arrogance they're ginning up support for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage...which was something Bill Clinton was trying to avoid when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Had he not passed that law then the amendment would have already become reality.

Now, if the gays go after people who support an amendment to define marriage then there will likely be blood because this isn't Sweden where people will just shrug when their church gets closed because a pastor calls deviancy a sin.

The country is already a powder keg and this crap is not going to help. To the contrary, it makes it possible for a real radical to become President in 2016. And then that radical will have all of the power that Obama has accumulated to the Presidency. Not to mention that this radical will also have significant popular support for imposing truly repressive laws on the gays.