Mark2005

Anyone can claim that. What if I marched to your door, kicked you out of your house and claimed God gave me your house? How would that sit with you?

I know it varies from one place to another, but where I am 2010 and 2011 was much, much worse. Nice to have some rain today. In 2011, they went 2-3 months with no rain. But, yes, I am convinced that global warming is a legitimate issue.

To answer the question in the original post: Yes, it is fine to vote for Mitt Romney or anyone else you feel is well qualified. One's choice of religion should not limit their voting choice. Some people will try to tell you their is a "right choice and a "wrong choice", but I disagree. Make up your own mind.

Throughout history there have been, and still are, a lot of evil leaders in the world. Do you blame God for that?

I think he should go to jail for at least 90 days or do a lot of community service. They need to make an example of this guy. He should also have to pay the restaurant for damages. Here is an idea, have him hold up a sign all day on the street corner advertizing for Chic Fil-A, while wearing a cow costume. To drive away more would-be customers?

Yeah, society is upside down in so many ways. No one really wants to repent, it seems. I find it odd what things are tolerated and what isn't.

So we see how ugly this was has become. And, in comparison with other stuff, this was pretty mild. At least no one got hurt. Honestly, I hope they're not putting people in jail for stuff like this. That would be going too far, IMO. Pay a fine and move on with. Nothing solved, sadly.

Then you would have to say the same for the rest of the world, not just U.S.

What did you think of Obama's pastor using his position for political purposes? It was terrible. I remember quite a few years ago sitting in a church service about two weeks before an election. The pastor's message was "vote your values". It was a very thinly veiled campaign propoganda session, complete with "voter guides" distributed to attendees. Made me sick. I thought "if this is what church has come to be about, why bother?" I have no problem discussing issues or even individual candidates. But when someone else tries to infer something about my character because of what I believe or who I support, I do get offended.

Another church figure attempting to use his position for political purposes. Sad. Again.

That was cited in the Salon article referenced above. I see the point; don't necessarily agree or disagree. As a reporter, I never used stuff like that in stories. It was like "I want to thank my Mom" or "my teammates did a great job". Just standard opening-line ice breaker. You courtesously wait for them to say it and then move on to what you want to ask. The only time I've referenced faith in a story is when I'm doing a profile of a certain person and it's obvious it's a big deal to them. Like a story I did years ago on an athlete who claimed to have been healed of a serious illness at a church camp. The catch is this.... no one ever interviews the losers about their faith. We never read or hear "I would have won, but God for the other gal" or "Glory to God I finished last." We got a couple of more God references in interviews from the US track hurdlers on Tuesday night. That's fine. I realize a lot of people --- from athletes to politicians to whomever --- faith is the most important part of their lives. That's fine. Doesn't really change my opinion one way or another.

Some of these shooters pass a background check fine because, hey, there has to be a first time for everything. It helps, but still a long way to go.

It's all just noise, a byproduct of this modern society where everyone has a platform to spout their opinion. Pretty soon, you learn to tune all that stuff out and do their own thing and be true to what you believe. The only problem I have with it is the message that God favors the winners more than the losers. What about Jordyn Wieber and her heartbreak? Does she love God or God love her any less? Equating success with God's favor can lead one down a very slippery slope.

No matter what solution you come up with, it will never be full proof. There is simply no way that you can ever provide an environment that is free of this kind of thing. We can take measures to reduce it, but never eliminate it altogether. Oh, I agree. I would suggest that until we learn to see the future, limiting access to weapons --- any kind of weapon --- is a step.

Anyone come up with a solution? How do you identify who the next shooter will be or how to keep guns with only the right people? Any ideas?