jasoncran

For all practical purposes Islam is a religion; it's considered one of the largest world relgions. True the religion of Islam is often rapped up in Islamic culture, but they aren't both the same thing. Kinda like how puritanical culture was Christian but not all Christians were puritans. Anyways I don't see how outlawing a culture would even work... our culture is changing all the time with new innovations from different parts of the world. Even supposing that Islamic culture would "take over" (which I don't think it would anytime soon), if it really was pervasive then that means the majority of the country was willing to accept it and if that's what the country wants that's what should happen. But for such a dramatic shift to occur in any of our lifetimes is almost impossible unless the country was completely overhauled in some way - we're talking generations upon generations of political and demographic change... not something a handful of Muslim organizations could do. Not all muslims want Sharia law in America, and not all muslims even agree with what Sharia law would/should look like. Clearly millions of America muslims are living just fine without Sharia law in America I too have no desire to have a new system of law imposed upon this country, I just think that the threat is greatly exaggerated and sensationalized, largely motivated by fear of the unknown and the different. If Islam can't be without Sharia law, why are there a lot of secular Islamic countries? http://en.wikipedia....ority_countries Wiki also has info on countries that have different law systems. http://en.wikipedia....y_legal_systems As I said before I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're asking me to look for by reading the Torah. Unless I know what I'm looking for I'm not going to just read half the Bible because you asked me to And for the record I have read the Bible before, I just don't see how re-reading it now pertains directly to what we're talking about. proper understanding of what isreal did then and why they and islam are totally different. God gave them the land as he judged nations for killing their children. islam doesnt quite work like that. does one have freedom to prosetylise in saudi arabia? No, you die for carrying a bible.

one thing? was she beaten for being there. she is in violation of sharia law? if that was a man talking to those women he would be dealt with and the women who spoke. hmm brave girl to march with them and ask.

i dont see our god telling us to standby and not stop any form of evil.

islam in general cant be without sharia law. read the torah? seriously thats the first five book of the bible. how hard is that? im not asking you to study ramban or rashi and rambam and their thoughts. just take your bible and start at genesis and end at deuteromony.

yup. the goverment of the us has failed to regualate porn.

oh hamburgers, I have been to an islamic nation . i hid the fact that im a jew for fear of life. only one i know wouldnt harm me because i know him.he risked his life with us and that says alot.he has remained consistent for peace. islam has been doing in general what they have been told do to. God used isreal to judge the canannites and YHWH told isreal not to mess with edom,moab,or the ammonites. for they are your cousins and i have promised them their land. later he did judge them for hating his nation. context is everything. please read the torah and then at least either disagree with that or say that well i was wrong. i can respect a disagreement that is from intellectual honesty, but I cant stand dishonest arguing or arguments.

and it doesnt look good for women in the those countries. which is why for the life i cant understand how the left embraces islam so readily.

islam its self has a tendency to embrace violence . whereas christianity that is the exeption rather then rule. the Lord condemns such violence. jesus even stayed peter from slaying to save christ from his death. we ar NOT to spread christianity by violence!even isreal when she took her land as ordered by GOD didnt go an attack other nations unless provoked first.

so what of the muslim-vets in the army and all branches that have served honorably? they are there. long before 9-1-1 i served with them. that is how i know about the noi and sunni islam to a small degree before the war on terrah.

i support isreal because im jewish. plain and simple. i do see a return to the land but not this current jewish state. its my belief that the new state of isreal shall be only those hebrews that are in christ that will "inherit" that land. that said, i may still have relatives there. we cranmans are all over the world.

paul had a jewish man working for him that defends him to this day on his policies. i dont agree with all of his national defense ideas but we CAN NO LONGER BE the world police. i have issues with our use of the services in this muslim nations. the services one function to kill and to kill only. i have been there and under bush we went to a call the chain up who isnt there with you while being shot to get cleareance to return fire. that aint how war is to be fought, we cant bring democracy by force to these nations. so i agree with mr. paul on that to a degree. i also see some of his arguments with isreal. why? isreal has its own right to do with what has to protect over there. so if isreal attacks and invades lebanon and anti-semetic president says no and pulls funds then what? isreal is made to bow. with the freedom of not being under our thumb of money they can do as they need. funding aipac is a double edged sword for isreal. any jew who has done his homework will notice that.

heres what i see, a few years ago in my hometown a mother of a 16 years was convicted for statutory rape of a boy hers sons age. she didnt force him. he loved that sex and went back a few times. that boys father turned that 40 YEAR old mother in. she is doing 30 years for the crime. a bit harsh. but in my grandpa day in the 20s and thirtys that would have been acceptable to marry if the rolls were reversed as women did die young. my grandpa was 20 years older then his wife. it was well known women often died young and in child birth then. No, im not for underage sex nor marrriage. my point here is that the gay rights movement will also (and some do already) have made it where if the crime was tween a 16 male and 40 male an attaboy from the father to that son or what not. i had a coworker say that if that was his son that had sex with a 40 yrd female he would have shook his hand not charge that mother and not have ruined the fun. that is why i wanted to bring pedastery into the this conversation.

not all do but well narth.com has pflag listed as a group that any person doesnt want to let the kids near if they really know. pedastery is what that is called.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/romney_book/print_edition.html so you didnt mind doing all that in mass. if you had a problem with gay marriages why then you comply against your conscience? to me that says a lot about him. its not about his faith but about his office.mormons side with us agaisnt gay rights and abortion. he doesnt he sides with the left!

Nebula posted a video on the board that pretty much shows that kids with parents in a homosexual relationship are much more likely to have kids that turn out to be homosesual... If you don't have a problem with homosexual lifestyles then you should not have a problem with them adopting kids..... if you agree with God that it's not right to practice homosexual lifestyle, it is child abuse. Homosexuals should not be able to adopt children, and Romney is wrong on this issue. My argument with Jasoncran is over whether or not Romney did a flip flop here? He never took a position on gay adoption till this past week, so there was no flip flop. At the same time, he is clearlly wrong. mormonism is agianst gay rights. yet he , romney didnt veto that bill, so which is it and for the record im against gay rights to marry and adopt. that is my point with that logic. to say that gays can adopt but not marry is weak argument. romney is courting the gay votes. that is all he is doing. you romney supporters dont want to admit that. he has been the same on that since mass. i stand corrected from mass resistance. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html sounds like to me he does support gay marriage. hmm interesting thing about that sight i find troubling. while i dont agree with romney and i think he is pro gay rights and has been for some time. he could have resigned. if i was governor and i felt that was wrong. simply resign. its not that hard. that said. the courts can rule a law unconstutional and i recall that the mass court did do that. perhaps someone more up to speed with laws can correct me on this matter. Romney has never opposed same sex couples. His position has just been against them being able to marry. You can spin this all you want, but there is no flip flop here. I do find his position troubling, and will agree he wants the gay votes. Why wouldn't he want all the votes he can get, especially in a close election? Again, I don't agree with his position, and I don't even support civil unions for homosexuals, but Romney has always been ok with it. then tell me why mass resistance? civil unions is back door marriage according to some. he knew that gays can be forced to that given lawrence v texas.

i look up that court case its based on the interpretation of the law. they did well act as activist judges and changed the meaning of the law. hmm interesting.

Nebula posted a video on the board that pretty much shows that kids with parents in a homosexual relationship are much more likely to have kids that turn out to be homosesual... If you don't have a problem with homosexual lifestyles then you should not have a problem with them adopting kids..... if you agree with God that it's not right to practice homosexual lifestyle, it is child abuse. Homosexuals should not be able to adopt children, and Romney is wrong on this issue. My argument with Jasoncran is over whether or not Romney did a flip flop here? He never took a position on gay adoption till this past week, so there was no flip flop. At the same time, he is clearlly wrong. mormonism is agianst gay rights. yet he , romney didnt veto that bill, so which is it and for the record im against gay rights to marry and adopt. that is my point with that logic. to say that gays can adopt but not marry is weak argument. romney is courting the gay votes. that is all he is doing. you romney supporters dont want to admit that. he has been the same on that since mass. i stand corrected from mass resistance. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html sounds like to me he does support gay marriage. hmm interesting thing about that sight i find troubling. while i dont agree with romney and i think he is pro gay rights and has been for some time. he could have resigned. if i was governor and i felt that was wrong. simply resign. its not that hard. that said. the courts can rule a law unconstutional and i recall that the mass court did do that. perhaps someone more up to speed with laws can correct me on this matter.

candice that is what the gay rights movement wants to do in america. some of them not all. its becoming known to those who want to do it. pedastery is what any jew who knows his or her torah wil say that ancient egypt was like when the torah was given to them. that is why i posted that. i ask for permission to post this as all parents need to know what it is and who is pushing it.

its well ludicrous to say or think that gays can adopt but not be married. here in florida was that was banned gays still got kids by doing as a single person. so unless we can argue that they are bad for kids with the hard data they will have a case. and if they win that then why not marriage? if two kids are in the same house with two men as dads or girls as moms and none the worse or better then hetero couples that are married or not then why not let them marry will be their argument. so in essence romney is for gay marriage!

as i thought. told ya. he would flip What are you talking about? I never heard him address gay couples ability to adopt children in the past. Had he come out in favor of same sex marriage, that would be a flip, but not this. I just don't think it is a good strategic move, and I don't agree with gay couples being able to adopt. I never looked at this as a flip flop. look at mass. he didnt veto the gay rights adoption law that he passed. if we christians want men or women to support our causes then they must be willing to end their political careers for it. romney wont do that. thus he is a flipper. he has ran on the "family values" bus that means no to gay rights and marriages.

well if your honest and wanting to know this probably will be a lifetime search as when you think that you have it all figured out. you dont. all i will say is dont take the verses out of context as is common today. just read what it says and then look to what the references events earlier say and how that happened and the languaged used and go from there ie for it is says in exodus. "for i am come down to see.." and jesus is telling annais ye shall see me coming in the clouds. the means the judgements. god judged egypt and isreal with signs and plagues and signs and wonders and the roman army. Seeking God in itself is a life long search. For no matter how much we read and come to know of Him, there is always more. Do not mind spending a lifetime searching. After all....seek and ye shall find. Right? yes but when you start into these eschatology debates you will see who has not studied much and thinks that they have it all figured out. when i think i have it all packed i get stumped by someone or realise whoops im wrong.

I thought I was pretty clear when I stated that private businesses have the right to descriminate. I did not say the same right applied to state agencies, or that a state has the right to pass descriminatory laws. All people pay taxes, people of all races, so they have rights when it comes to the government. I am speaking only of privately owned businesses. I made it very clear that if the descrimination was against me for being a white evangelical, that should be the right of a business owner who was an atheist or whatever. If I said it in relationship to me, of course it would apply to a bigot who doesn't want to hire or serve someone because they are black or Jewish. I don't know how much more clear I could have been about it? That would open the door for someone else to open a competing business and cater to those being descriminated against by others. I would want to hire the best people, and would want to serve anyone, so I could rake in the money others were throwing away, and have the best employees. As for slavery, there is a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits it, so no, my logic doesn't reach that conclusion. At the same time, I do believe some forms of slavery would be useful. The Bible actually allows for slavery and regulates it. It never prohibits it. There are some people living in conditions worse than slavery, living on the streets, and going hungry working in low paying jobs. Why shouldn't someone be able to sell themselves into slavery as they did in OT times, with the chance to leave after 7 years? It might be an improvement for some, if they were required to get room and board for their labor, but no actual spending money. I've actually suggested that before to help with homelessness, but it wouldn't be race based, but needs based. An individual would have the choice to become a slave. well your idea has been tried that is what the jim crow laws in the south were. but well as my jewish family found out. it doesnt look good white hires blacks or help them. here they were ran out of town at night. the blacks out number the white then and now but yet if the whites owned all the business. and well you misdunderstand the torah and this nation was built on indentured servitude! the jews when they were in roman control didnt have slaves all that much. http://www.chabad.or...nd-the-Jews.htm

so lets say do that and jailed your for some crime that the constution once allowed called freedom to criticise your president? im sorry they have a right to ask that.

If the government were more philosophically libertarian, then it wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws to begin with. Government barges its way into all kinds of things that it shouldn't be in. And most of what the government does IS un-Constitutional. I believe - and this is consistent with Scripture - that God wants us to come to Him NOT from an EXTERNAL imposition (through secular law), but from WITHIN. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Let me reiterate that I personally find the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent - and have nothing but pity for those involved in it. That's one reason you will never see me refer to anything about it as "gay." So in no way am I defending the practice. But at the same time, I cannot justify a SECULAR government saying that two-consenting adults cannot enter into a mutual contract (although like I said earlier, I would prefer it not be called a marriage) Consider - when we say the goverment should ban a sinful practice just because it IS sinful, are we not giving it more "power" that we give to God? Going all the way back to the Garden, did not God create Man with free will? The answer is - He did. And the truth is, we may not always like or agree with the results of man's free will, but we have to live with it. And ultimately let God deal with the one who exercised his free will - if his free will has caused him to conflict with God's will. Blessings! -Ed I have a question for you Ed. Let's look at your comment about a secular government saying two conscenting adults can enter into a mutual contract. Are you ok with allowing civil unions for Mormon polygamists? I have no problem with that or civil unions for gays, so long as the secular government doesn't have the authority to make anyone accept those unions, at the risk of lawsuits. I don't believe this desire for recognition is just for general acceptance. I believe it is to force people to grant homosexuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples, and I can't go along with that. Make it a meaningless document, and who cares? Give it teeth, and I will continue to oppose it. It was during the Clarence Thomas hearings back in the early 90s that I first became aware of the term "Natural Rights". The knock against Thomas (from all democrats as well as some republicans) was that he was an advocate for those. Another term for "natural rights" is "God-given" rights. In other words, it's a belief that all rights come from God; not government. It was what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote "endowed by their Creator." Now, I've taken a somewhat roundabout way to answer your question, but my point is this: If one is a believer in "natural rights" (as I am); then he should realize that it is one's "right" to enter into any kind of a contract with another; as he chooses - as long as no one is harmed. Ah, there's the rub. I may have libertarian leanings, but I'm not an anarchist. Governments (secular) DO have a role. So of course, two people cannot enter into a contract to kill someone - that would be conspiracy to murder. And if they carry it out, then it IS murder. But back to the subject at hand - civil unions. If two people (or more, to respond to the Mormon component of your question!) want to enter into a civil union, who does it harm? (other than their own eternal souls, but they and God must deal with that) Also in your question, you mentioned being "forced" to accept their "civil union" at the risk of a lawsuit. I don't know if you had a specific example in mind, but I'll supply one here. What about a Christian landlord who does not want to rent to a homosexual couple? Well, I'll go back to my original contention that government already does way too much. In my "libertarian" (or better term - Constitutional) government, the right to do with one's own private property will not be infringed. So, the Christian landlord can rent to - or choose not to rent to - whomever he pleases. I will admit there is a tougher example, and that would be homosexual couples that wish to adopt children. While a libertarian society would likely permit Church or religious run adoption agencies or orphanages to discriminate, any government run institution would likely not be allowed to do the same. So all that to say this: There is no perfect form of government - this side of heaven. That's why I've always said I'm a believer in a Benevolent Dictatorship (as long as Our Lord and Savior is the Dictator, that is) The government "allowing" (or better yet, remaining silent on) civil unions is not a "perfect" solution. But to go back to a point I made earlier - giving the government power to limit people from committing one sin (which we might favor) will lead to the government having too much power. And it will surely use it in ways we DON'T favor) Blessings! -Ed I am not sure I really disagree with you, except perhaps in one small point. I would require that we do away with anti-descrimination laws before allowing homosexual unions, and it seems like you would allow the civil unions without those laws first being repealed? I don't believe in anti-descrimination laws, period, even if that descrimination works against me. If someone is a hard core atheist, and doesn't want to rent a room to a Christian, if it is his business, purchased with his money, that is his right, in a truly free society. On the other hand, if it is a tax supported school trying to descriminate, that is another story, because all tax payers helped finance the institution. You would have similar issues with a private owned bus verses a city bus. If it was a private owned company, they have every right to descriminate against anyone. It could be a black owned bus company that makes whites go to the back of the bus. At the same time, if it is a city bus, they shouldn't be able to descriminate. So again, if we do away with all anti-descrimination laws, I am ok with homosexual unions, though I wouldn't personally accept those couples as married. my problem here is that i from the south. i used to work at a church where A CHRISTIAN BLACK WOMAN WAS told that she being black could only serve in the soup kitchen while being paid to work for this white baptist church. she complained and finally sued them for her rights.sad aint it. that however, was long before i came to work with her. it was about 1980 when they finally told her ok you can work elsewhere within the church grounds. sad still. a believer treated like that. Problem you have in that comparison is that i've never read anywhere that God says that there is anything wrong with being black. He has said there is something wrong with gay sex. So using that comparison is weak at best and deceptive at worst. he said that he wants to do away with anti-discrimination laws thats why. that said when i was with that church they never asked me if i was saved inorder to work for them. i went to that church and i did make it known but do we want to ask and have the pastor and the elders in our lives that much? i dont. i wont work for the church like that again. i will volunteer but i have learned how pharisiticals churches can be let me ask you all these things? would you stop listening to christian music(ccm) if i told you that there gay musicians in that industry? and im sure some are in their recording the songs. making the cds etc. and by recording i mean sound enginneer. i have heard it from a freind whose daughter went to the dove awards as she wanted to sing. she say a gay section and was appaled at how carnal that whole thing is and from that day i have seen it too with the christian versions of talent shows etc. would you go to a gay doctor if he was the only one who could cure you? would hire one to work on your car? these i ask because we all can see their sin ast its obvious but what about that nice man that says all the right things and has porn in his life. we dont ask for this level of accountability when we go to stores or rent do we? so if a couple is in sin and they offend you dont then rent but then also if you go to any sinner for a product then dont buy from them. when its all said and done lets withdrawal from the world into our little cubby holes and bubbles. THAT ISNT THE GOSPEL And that is not the issue. The issue is the right of a private individual to be prejudiced and to descriminate. I believe they should have that right. It is up to the individual who they patronize and why? One reason I go to the doctor I do is because I know he is a Republican. I could find a better doctor, but I don't want to patronize a liberal when I have a choice. I would think twice about supporting a homosexual gospel singer. I definately wouldn't support them if they were defending their lifestyle as ok, rather than struggling with it and trying to quit. It does make a difference to me when it comes to who I do business with, but not to the point where I am openly boycotting anyone. People should have the right to withdraw to their own little cubby holes if that is what they wish to do. That is their right. I stand by my position in favor of repealing all anti-descrimination laws effecting privately owned businesses. They really should have been struck down as unconstitutional anyway. ok so if the whole state of florida made it illegal to be a black man or other color or white to live in this state and work thats ok? i work for a company that i doesnt discriminate against gays.the problem for you is that christians sadly at time are the most hateful. seen it and had it done to me by when i was a bisexual. i dont watch tv if they have a gay charachter in them. thats fine. but well its hard not to do anything without sinner supported by it, good luck with your idea. i was a jw and that is what they pushed. dont deal the world all that much.its that strong of a cult. legal yes but well i wont go into what they did to me and well others who are far worse then me when they came out. im sorry but i will go here since the kkk used to be near me. if a sign said no jews allowed or blacks allowed in all businesses thats OK? yup that did happen here and it was the kkk behind it all.im sure that a jew like me wouldnt be too welcome in the areas where they had control here. my last name screens he is a jew!while we cant make a man love one another we can contain the hate they act on. remember if i take your logic of right to hate to its end then slavery should be legal.

as i thought. told ya. he would flip