# ND Gov. Speech



## DeltaBoy

Well it all kicked off today around 1:15 p.m.

It will be interesting to see what your thoughts are about the speech he makes...

Let's see how many times people clap and stand! :lol:


----------



## DeltaBoy

I counted 15 clapping sessions and then I lost count.

I just don't get why he/other's tend to forget about our youngest children. He is going to put 75 million toward K-12 and Higer Ed... It's a solid move and much needed, but what about childcare or other programs where they are serving pre-birth - 5 years? It's not even on the radar screen in ND.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Crap, I missed it!! Dozed off after the National Anthem.......


----------



## zogman

> what about childcare or other programs where they are serving pre-birth - 5 years? It's not even on the radar screen in ND.


Back in the fifties my ma and pa took care of me WITHOUT the government.
Me and the mrs raised 3 daughters without government assistance.

What do you want Delta boy??????


----------



## pointer99

zogman said:


> Back in the fifties my ma and pa took care of me WITHOUT the government.
> Me and the mrs raised 3 daughters without government assistance.


what a novel idea.........parents rasing their own children.......maybe it'll catch on.

pointer


----------



## DeltaBoy

First off children haven't changed, but times have. Back in the fifties there were a lot more parent(s) taking care of their children at home, etc. Now in our current society dual working parents are the norm and not taking care of their children at home. Children are now being taking care of by childhood professionals or many refer to them as babysitter's. It's not all about just dropping a child off and I will see you at 5:00 p.m. Think about it, these children are spending more time in childcare or other related programs than with their parents. It's all about being developmentally appropriate and to tell you the truth many of the people who are taking care of our youngest children are not providing this type of an environment.

The major point is&#8230; You're born with 100 billion brain cells and more synapses happen before you reach the age of five and create skills that will last a lifetime. It's kind of like "use it or lose it" and if appropriate care is not provided&#8230; Then you end up with full jails, poor test scores later in school, etc.

Think of it this way&#8230; If you were to get a new dog, would you wait to teach the dog obedience, skills, etc. at two years old? Everybody knows it's too late to do that or it gets harder to do. Well my friend it's has a similar ring when your dealing with children.

Look I can go on and on about this subject. People just need to take notice of our youngest children. It's not all about changing diapers, proper guidance, who's to taking care of our youngest children or money.

It's all about some recognition about professionals and most of all our youngest children. So many never think about this till it's too late.

Next time your with a young child... Think about it! :wink:


----------



## farmerj

DeltaBoy said:


> First off children haven't changed, but times have. Back in the fifties there were a lot more parent(s) taking care of their children at home, etc. Now in our current society dual working parents are the norm and not taking care of their children at home. Children are now being taking care of by childhood professionals or many refer to them as babysitter's. It's not all about just dropping a child off and I will see you at 5:00 p.m. Think about it, these children are spending more time in childcare or other related programs than with their parents. It's all about being developmentally appropriate and to tell you the truth many of the people who are taking care of our youngest children are not providing this type of an environment.


Let me ask you this....How many kids DO you have?

We have 2. I have a full time job, my wife goes to school full time. We own our house, own a boat, a nice van, a 4X4 have 2 dogs and 2 cats. I have my hunting and fishing hobbies and my wife affords to go to the health club all the time. And the kids are NOT in day care.

How is this on a one and one-half income family. Or as the gubermint would call it, a one-income family.

Becuase we worked our schedule so that one of us would be home with the youngest one not in school.

We chose NOT to live like the Jones and have everything paid with credit. We learned a long time ago to by a life, not a house, or truck or anything else.

We have several friends that did not understand this when we explained it to them. Out of that group, all but 2 have lost their houses and have now gone into a trailer park to get back on their feet, or are now living in an apartment.

Why do I say all this.....

Because I also see be my wife having a LICENSED daycare in the house, several families and their situation.

I see families not have Christmas. I see families struggle to make it by. I also see alot of single parents or divorced families.

Society priorities are not on the family as they were even in the 70's when I was growing up.

We gave up a lot of the fun things when we were first married. Kids are expensive. They take a lot of the fun money out of the budget, but I see too many people that still insist on the fun stuff.

Kids have changed. The idiot box is now the referred babysitter. Playstations and Segas are the entertainment of choice. How often do you see kids outside for hours on end anymore? I returned home in September and took the privilege of TV away. They still watch it on occasion, but the focus in the house now is on arts, crafts, special projects or what not.


----------



## DeltaBoy

FarmerJ,

I don't have any kids, but if you want to look at it a different way... I have lot of kids since my profession deals with children, staff, parent(s), and the communities across ND. I have a lot of respect for your wife, she has one of the toughest jobs around, with very little respect from our current society.

If the Gov. wants to talk about growing an economy/jobs. Childcare comes close to the top for employment in ND and across the United States.

You should PM me your mailing address, I can send you some information about involving children outdoors from a males perspective. :wink:


----------



## farmerj

DeltaBoy said:


> FarmerJ,
> 
> I don't have any kids, but if you want to look at it a different way... I have lot of kids since my profession deals with children. I have a lot of respect for your wife, she has one of the toughest jobs around, with very little respect from our current society. If the Gov. wants to talk about growing an economy/jobs. Childcare comes close to the top for employment in ND and across the United States.
> 
> You should PM me your mailing address, I can send you some information about involving children outdoors from a males perspective. :wink:


PM sent, however....

I have a sister-in-law. She has a degree in early childhood development. Thought she new what it meant to "raise" or deal with a child. Now with a 5 YO and a 1 YO she is finally starting to understand it is having you child spend the night at their cousins, taking a trip to see family at Christmas time. Watching the child discovering something new and different ad wanting to share it with you.

It's about teething, 2AM feedings. The green diapers. Learning why moms REALLY hate little boy's and their aim. Their first step, saying "mom" or "dad" for the first time. Watching the look on their face when they get their first gun. Or catching their first fish.

I am sorry, but until you actually raise a child, and see them cry for you as you leave for the day, and tackle you screaming "daddy" or "mommy" when you come home. There is no way to describe it.

There is no "No Child Left behind" program that ANY governor or legislator can put together, because the ONLY institute that can provide that is.....

THE FAMILY. Mom and Dad. And there will NEVER be anything to replace that.

Until those values are brought back focusing on the family, we will continue to see the programs and issues we have today.


----------



## DeltaBoy

No Child Left Behind... That's a whole another topic!

Your hitting the nail right on the head Farmerj... It all starts with the parents, they are the ultimate teacher/provider.

I did teach for a few years and had many of those moments where I did get to watch a child count to 5, 10, and many other milestones. Then I was able to communicate this info to the parents, at times it would break their hearts and some appeard not to give much praise at all.

Ha..ha.. I had to change diapers in college and get graded on it! Did you know that there are ten guidelines on how to change a diaper? Boy did I get shiz for this since I was the capt. of our college football team and taking courses in ECE. I have enjoyed every moment working in the ECE field...


----------



## buckseye

To Those Who Survived

Some very interesting statements we can relate to- Yes, we have survived and largely due to our "going outside and played"!?

Subject: TO THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 30's 40's,
50's, 60's and 70's

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked
and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing and
didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered
with bright colored lead based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors
or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no
helmets, not to mention, the risks we took
hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat
belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up
on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a
bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one
bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter and drank soda pop
with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day,
as long as we were back when the streetlights came
on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were
O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of
scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out
we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes
a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's, X-boxes,
no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no
video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell
phones, no personal computers, no internet or
internet chat rooms..........
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth
and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and
ate worms and although we were told it would happen,
we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms
live in us forever.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and
knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked
in and talked to them!

Little league had tryouts and not everyone made the
team.
Those who didn't had to learn to deal with
disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the
law was unheard of. They actually sided with the
law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk
takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have bee an explosion of
innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility,
and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS! Send this
on to others who have had the luck to grow up as
kids, before the lawyers and the government
regulated our lives for our own good.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with
scissors, doesn't it?!


----------



## BigDaddy

Delta Boy, welcome to the politics forum. By the way, I agree with you wholdheartedly that we need to do more for our young children in North Dakota. With the economy the way it is, there is no way for a family to make it without both spouses working.

I have to disagree with farmerj. It is not simply a matter of making sacrifices to afford one parent to stay home, or arranging work schedules to allow one parent to be home at any one time during the day. Very few situations allow for the juggling of schedules that farmer describes. Furthermore, cutting corners and having one spouse stay home is simply not an option in 2005.

Here is something to make people's eyes open: When my wife and I bought our house in Bismarck a couple of years ago, our lender told us that Bismarck is now in the same class as Honolulu when it comes to looking at the cost of housing relatively to salaries. That's right, Bismarck is the highest in the country! The cost of housing does not look that high based on prices, but salaries are very low. Simply put, a single income family can't pay for housing and basic needs, let alone dream enough of buying luxuries.

What choice does a young family with kids have? They can shell out their limited funds to send their kids to daycare (which I did), find a nearby relative to what the kids (which many people don't have), or send their kid to some in-house daycare where the kids learn nothing.

I think what DeltaBoy is describing is a comprehensive plan for young children the covers everything from prenatal care, nutrition, and intellectual development. Such a program is non-existent in North Dakota.

Now back to the Governor's speech. Did anybody count the number of times that he mentioned hunting and commercialization issues? I did. The answer is ZERO.


----------



## farmerj

So for BigDady and Delta Boy,

How do we get things back on track so that the parents can regain the control that they should have.

Both in allowing one parent to remain at home with a child if they care to, and refocus the emphasis back on the family values that seem to be getting eroded away.

I didn't make this a new thread because it addresses why the governor didn't include pre-school moneys.

After having seeing a third world country, I have the view that we are a society of want and desire. We have to have everything that is on TV or whatever the marketting types show us in print, radio or visual.

We WANT, WANT, WANT, everything to the point of excess. As a result, both spouses work.

Yet we avoid the greatest riches we could ever have, Family.


----------



## BigDaddy

How do we get things back on track so that the parents can regain the control that they should have.

farmer,

I think the answer here is based on simple economics. We need to return to a time when a family could not only survive, but live comfortably, on the income from one wage-earner. True, many people buy things that they don't need and eat out more than they should, but many families are working like crazy to just pay the bills.

How do return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet? We need to grow the U.S. economy. We need to support US manufacturers, and tell Wal-Mart and their ilk that we do not want cheap goods made in China. We need to stop outsourcing jobs to third world countries. We need to stop the failed free trade policies and realize that we need to take care of our manufacturers and farmers first. As consumers, we need to be willing to pay more for US products and refuse to base our choices solely on cost. We need to strengthen our unions, and as workers we need to tell employers that we will not work for less than a living wage. We need to tell businesses that North Dakota is not China, and that we don't want the $5/hour jobs that the Governor calls economic development.

Will we ever return to a world of single income providers? I don't know. I can tell you that people in Bismarck are salivating at the thought of a Super Wal-Mart, even though they fail to grasp that a box-store economy is the reason that they can only afford to shop at box stores. Do you pay 10% more to buy your toothpaste at a local family-owned drugstore, or do you go to Wal-Mart? Do you pay $120 for a pair of Redwing Shoes from a local shoe store, or do you opt for the $50 pair of shoes made in a foreign country.

Most people will say that they can't afford to pay more to buy American and shop at their local privately-owned store. I say that you can't afford not to.

I think that the term "family values" is overused and misunderstood. I fully value the importance of families and the positive influences that a strong family unit has on our society. However, the loss of what we call family values is economic in nature, not some abstract societal force.


----------



## pointer99

buckseye said:


> Little league had tryouts and not everyone made the
> team.
> Those who didn't had to learn to deal with
> disappointment. Imagine that!!


buckseye....... your post underlines what is wrong with the kids of this country today. they heve no work ethic.......my kids included.........one of my kids played tee-pall when she was younger. at the end of the game there was no winner or loser. tell me what the hell is up with that. no spirit of competition. no winner --no loser it's not a contest....it's exercise. i got my azz chewed by one of the soccer moms in the stands when i made mention of it. if she hadn't been such a fat hippo i would have probably given her an azz whoopin CAUSE THERE AINT A WOMAN ALIVE WHO CAN BEAT ME IN A FAIR FIGHT....... but then that's another topic and i digress.

i see my kids splashin around in the pool and i tell them the story about the time my cousins and i dammed up the creek with rocks to make a swimmin hole..........i get this look every time i tell them :eyeroll:

thanks to this post i think my belated new years resolution is to make them get out from in front of the boob tube and enjoy the outdoors.

pointer


----------



## zogman

> We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a
> bottle.


Now no one will drink water unless it costs a buck or more a bottle



> We would leave home in the morning and play all day,
> as long as we were back when the streetlights came
> on.


And you didnt HAVE to HAVE a cell phone



> The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the
> law was unheard of. They actually sided with the
> law!


And most of us were more scared of our parents than we were of the law. But they had our love and respect. Now the LIBS, is that you Big Daddy? have screamed child abuse for so long you don't dare look cross at your child in public.



> I think what DeltaBoy is describing is a comprehensive plan for young children the covers everything from prenatal care, nutrition, and intellectual development. Such a program is non-existent in North Dakota.


DO YOU REALLY THINK GOVERNMENT HAS THE ANSWER?????
NO FLIPPIN WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## buckseye

These are my favorites, all I can say is Thank You God!!!



> This generation has produced some of the best risk
> takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
> 
> The past 50 years have bee an explosion of
> innovation and new ideas.
> 
> We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility,
> and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!


----------



## Storm

How do we get things back on track so that the parents can regain the control that they should have?

This is a good question and topic. BigDaddy made some good points but I have to disagree with the notion that the answer is simple economics. This may be one issue for a nuclear family. The last statistics I saw were that over 30% of new born white babies were born to single mothers. The number jumps to over 60% of new born black babies are born to single mothers. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. We have way to many children being born or raised in single parent families. This means the mother is going to raise her child or children by herself while trying to hold down one or two jobs. Some will be on wefare, but the last I knew you could only be on welfare for a limited amount of years. So all these children are raised in an unsupervised environment, most without a father. This is only going to lead to more social problems in our society.

Why are so many people divorcing now compared to 50 years ago. Even when I grew up in the 70's and 80's divorce was rare. Now it is common and accetped as no big deal. Why are so many girls getting pregnant out of wedlock. Why do most people think they have to have a 250,000 house and vaction two times a year? Why do most people think they have to go out and buy the biggest pickup or suv?

The most telling statistic to me why our society is slowly slipping down hill is look at church attendance now compared to 50 years ago. 50 years ago most u.s. citizens attended a Christian church at least once a week. Now less than 35 percent do. If a person doesn't have anything to ground them they are at the mercy of their own passions. What do you think a teenage girl or boy is going to do without any type of spiritial direction? What is an adult going to do without any type of spiritial direction? Teenagers are way more likely to have premartial sex. Adults are way more likely to get divorce. Instead of giving 10% to the church, adults are going to buy a bigger suv, house, etc. The whole point of giving money to the church is not only to keep the lights on, but to break ones desire for money.

BigDaddy wrote: "I think that the term "family values" is overused and misunderstood. I fully value the importance of families and the positive influences that a strong family unit has on our society. However, the loss of what we call family values is economic in nature, not some abstract societal force."

The loss of family values isn't economic in nature, it's the loss of living a Christian life. We all need a moral compass to guide us through life. Now I will be the first person to say that all people are sinners and suffer set backs including Christians, but a person living a Christian life and obeying the 10 commandments is way more likely to posses family values, and this has nothing to do with the amount of money one makes or has.


----------



## BigDaddy

Storm wrote:



> The loss of family values isn't economic in nature, it's the loss of living a Christian life.


I agree that a decline in church attendance plays a part with a lack of spiritual discipline. However, I also know lots of people who are "Christian" for an hour each Sunday.

Why the decrease in church attendance? I still contend that it is economic. I am 35 years old and the vice president of my church council (that's right, a Christian liberal!), so I am keenly aware of issues surrounding church attendance.

What people forget is that young people work more hours and are much more transient than they were 50 years ago. I am 35 years old, and I have lived in four different states since I was 18. This is not uncommon for people in my generation. Why? Because you can't find career opportunities in small hometowns anymore. As a result, young people in North Dakota move from small towns to Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks. Young people also flock to larger cities in the region like Minneapolis and Denver. What is the result of this transient society? If you want to visit family, you travel on weekends. Church attendance suffers.

I have also read statistics indicating that young people work more hours than ever before. Because of relatively low pay to expenses, lots of young people have a part-time job to supplement their income. If I recall, Bismarck leads the region in the number of people working more than 40 hours per week. When Sunday comes around, people want to rest, period. Some congregations like mine have added Wednesday evening services to add a worship opportunity for the weekend travelers and resters, but even that does not suffice in all situations.

How is this not economic in nature? If young people were able to have a career (not a job, but a career) in their hometowns, I would bet that you would see a return to Sunday attendance. I would love to move back to my hometown (about 650 people in southern MN), but I wouldn't be able to pay the bills there.

Last, people assume that living a Christian life is directly linked to church attendance. I think that the better way of stating this is living a moral life. There are lots of religions besides Christianity that stress social responsibility and love for your fellow human besides Christianity. Furthermore, if I am a Christian, attending services once a month as opposed to weekly does not make me any less Christian.


----------



## farmerj

So why did the state do away with the Sunday closing law?

Or was religion abolished from schools?

Or the 10 Commandments being hauled away on a flatbed from downtown?

How about the word "God" being stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance?

Society is the ruler here, and a moral society is being lost on one of decadence. Physical desires drive society to the want and fruits of "More". Always getting bigger and better. Unsatifaction.

When was the last time someone spent time with a child doing something we take for granted. Like hammering a nail, or coloring a picture. Seeing the world through THIER eyes.

There is nothing "economical" about any of that. That is pure family.

This can be done on a one income family and still enjoy your fruits of life.


----------



## BigDaddy

farmer:

Religion has not been abolished from schools. Quite to the contrary, students or teachers can pray anytime they want to, just not in a mandated, school-sponsored way. Furthermore, people can refrain from praying if they see fit. If I am not mistaken, the last graduation ceremony I attended began with a Christian prayer.

Sunday closing laws were abolished because we do not have a theocracy in the US. Like it or not, there are many citizens that are non-Christian in this country. Therefore, why should we restrict their rights for something as harmless as shopping on a Sunday. If you don't want to shop on Sundays, then don't. However, don't prohibit a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jew, or an atheist from participating in normal activities on your Sabbath.

Ten Commandments were eliminated from public spaces like courthouses because there presence is an implied endorsement by the government. I have no problem with including religious documents in public spaces as long as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and members of any other religion are given the opportunity to include their documents or symbols of their beliefs.

My philosophy is very much of a "live and let live" one, what some would correctly call liberal. In other words, I will not infringe on your personal rights to practice your religion, and you will not infringe on mine. However, don't make me practice yours.


----------



## Storm

BigDaddy,
I commend you on being the vice president of your church council. I don't quite understand why living in a different state away your parents or the amount of work one does during the week has to do with church attendance. People one hundred years ago worked just as hard if not harder than people do today. Weekly Church attendance is not only important it is the 3 commandment of the "10 Commandments."

It states: *"Remember Thou Keep Holy The Sabbath Day*"

"In order to truly Honor God and to be aware of Him, it was necessary to tell man that a given time had to be set aside *frequently* to do this. God, in delivering the Commandment, announced to Moses, 'Without this Rule men woud not be able to hold up as a goal, the other nine.' God meant this time to be union with Him in a special manner, perhaps with a small sacriice to complete this union."

Going to church at least once a week should top any Christians priority list. If you travel on the weekends attend another church as you are passing through. We are talking about giving God one hour a week four times a month.

*Big Daddy Wrote:* "

"people assume that living a Christian life is directly linked to church attendance. I think that the better way of stating this is living a moral life. There are lots of religions besides Christianity that stress social responsibility and love for your fellow human besides Christianity. Furthermore, if I am a Christian, attending services once a month as opposed to weekly does not make me any less Christian."

This quote is directly in contradiction to the 10 Commandments which are the conerstone of the Christian Faith.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"This quote is directly in contradiction to the 10 Commandments which are the conerstone of the Christian Faith."

I attend church perhaps once a year, am I therefore a hethan? Is not the love and understanding of God in the heart? Churches were originally made as a place to worship without interference, and to inspire awe into those who attended it. On a similar note storm do you give 10% of your pay to the church?


----------



## BigDaddy

Storm wrote:

I don't quite understand why living in a different state away your parents or the amount of work one does during the week has to do with church attendance. 

The answer is obvious. People who live hours away from family must travel on weekends to attend family celebrations and functions. This is especially true in the summer, when things like weddings and reunions occur.

Secondly, I must ask, what is this text:?



> "In order to truly Honor God and to be aware of Him, it was necessary to tell man that a given time had to be set aside frequently to do this. God, in delivering the Commandment, announced to Moses, 'Without this Rule men woud not be able to hold up as a goal, the other nine.' God meant this time to be union with Him in a special manner, perhaps with a small sacriice to complete this union."


I must have missed this in Exodus when the Ten Commandments were listed.

I agree that attending services is important. However, you assume that honoring God on the Sabbath must occur in a physical structure called a church. I do not. I regularly attend services on Sunday mornings, but I can also worship at home, in a duck slough, or with my family on a camping trip. I believe that the intent of the commandment was for people to take Sunday as a day of rest to reflect on their faith and honor their God. People can reflect on their faith and honor their God in many ways.

If a young family maintains its bonds with each other through spending time with each other on a weekend camping trip or vacation, is that not important? Is that not honoring God? The Sabbath is there to recharge our spiritual batteries, regardless of how we do so. If one is a physial laborer, the most appropriate way to do so may be by taking that day to truly rest. However, if one is a cubicle jockey who sits behind a keyboard all day, he may recharge his spiritual batteries through the joys of physical labor, using his body in a way to honor God.

Again, I stand firm in my assertion that attending services once per month and serving God the remainder of the month is just as much (if not more) honorable to God than simply sitting through a one-hour service each week.

Finally, this theological debate is interesting, and I love these types of discussions. However, DeltaBoy started this string discussing the Governor's speech. We have digressed.


----------



## Storm

Tiger,
I give 10% to the Church and am trying to give more. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world so we should give more if possible, and it is possible for many. No Tiger I can't judge you as a hethan, but attending Church on a regular basis is to your benefit.

BigDaddy,
God spoke of people not a person. This whole idea is based on a community of worshippers, it's a communial affair. We have 167 hours a week that we can go duck hunting, work, play, be with friends, etc. Giving up one hour a week to spend with God in a worshipping community is not asking to much. It's good for people to see others openly worshipping....it's good for my daughter to see me give up an hour a week and put total concentration into worshipping God. I'm not trying to judge any of you guys, just having a little theological discussion. Phil Robinson better known as "The Duck Commander" has a great line in one of his videos. He talks about how his group will chase ducks all day long, but on Sunday at 10:00 a.m. they go to Church and he doesn't care how many ducks are coming in. I admire his priorities.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"No Tiger I can't judge you as a hethan, but attending Church on a regular basis is to your benefit. "

To my benefit, ok. To say that someone is not righteous for attending monthly and not weekly is a rediculous. A church is building of stone and mortar. A prayer or time of reflection upon your faith is not amplified because you are in said building.


----------



## Plainsman

Well here I am on this one riding the fence. I agree with Bigdaddy that you can worship anywhere you are. However, I think it is intended that we gather. When I was young I knew what I should do, but there were more fun things to do, and I rationalized like MT and others do now. No I don't think you can honor God by doing physical work on the Sabbath, that is a real stretch of the imagination to ignore God and do what you want. With age things have changed. If I am in town, I normally go to church, and right now I study Revelations at the church every Wednesday evening. I'm not the important one you need to convince why you don't go to church. Someone much more important than I is watching your behavior, and it isn't Santa Claus.

Bigdaddy, I understand Exodus goes with Revelations. I guess to get the most of Revelations you must read Exodus at the same time. Is that how you understand it also?


----------



## Storm

Tiger,

There is so much more to attending Church than just sitting inside a building made of rock and mortor. When you attend Church you are learning scripture hopefully from an ordained Priest or Pastor. You become a member of a spiritual community. You have an oppurtunity to help others in your community in a time of need and these people are more likely to help you. You are more likely to deepen your faith and have a closer relationship with God. Tiger, I by no means am going to sit here and make fun of your age, but as you grow up and mature things start to change. You start to realize that we are only here for a short amount of time, I call this the *ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE*. God gave you the greatest gift of all....a free will. With this "free will" you now have the oppurtunity to choose where you are going. All of us will be judged based on how we lived our lives while on Earth. The stakes are high.

Plainsman made some great points and he is speaking from years of wisdom. People, especially young people will try to rationalize every reason in world why they shouldn't go to Church. But the bottom line is attending Church on a regular basis is good for you and all the others who witness you attending Church.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> Tiger,
> 
> There is so much more to attending Church than just sitting inside a building made of rock and mortor. When you attend Church you are learning scripture hopefully from an ordained Priest or Pastor. You become a member of a spiritual community. You have an oppurtunity to help others in your community in a time of need and these people are more likely to help you. You are more likely to deepen your faith and have a closer relationship with God. Tiger, I by no means am going to sit here and make fun of your age, but as you grow up and mature things start to change. You start to realize that we are only here for a short amount of time, I call this the *ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE*. God gave you the greatest gift of all....a free will. With this "free will" you now have the oppurtunity to choose where you are going. All of us will be judged based on how we lived our lives while on Earth. The stakes are high.
> 
> Plainsman made some great points and he is speaking from years of wisdom. People, especially young people will try to rationalize every reason in world why they shouldn't go to Church. But the bottom line is attending Church on a regular basis is good for you and all the others who witness you attending Church.


Are you implying that you can best connect to God when in a group? I don't know about you but I feel most spiritual when alone flyfishing on a river. As for learning from a pastor or minister, was not the Bible meant to be read and interpreted by oneself?

I'm not sure what you mean by deepen my faith. By no means could my religon ever be changed, either by coersion or physical force. I know that God is the almighty being, the creator of all and Jesus is his son. Nothing could ever change my mind about that either. How much deeper could my faith be?

I find it funny how so many people and families feel that they can go out into the world six days a week in sin in every way imaginable, lying, stealing, hate, sloth, greed, and feel that simply by attending church that they will be saved. Honestly, when you make your final journey for evaluation, who do you think will get into heaven, the person who sinned all of the time but attended church weekly, or the man who thought about his actions, and refrained from sin but did not attend church?


----------



## Plainsman

Neither if they did not ask for forgiveness, or both if they did. Like I said I am studying Revelations, and I think a time will come when the church is misleading Christians. That time will be here and now if they condone same sex marriage.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Like I said I am studying Revelations, and I think a time will come when the church is misleading Christians. That time will be here and now if they condone same sex marriage.


Them darn queers, they always mess everything up... How about some more of that possum?



> Neither if they did not ask for forgiveness, or both if they did.


Really? Then who are you to tell anyone that they need to attend church weekly to be their holiest?


----------



## buckseye

All I know about same sex marriage is If God intended man to marry man or woman marry woman wouldn't he have taken care of that right away. He made man and woman and they joined to have children, children of God just like all of us.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> All I know about same sex marriage is If God intended man to marry man or woman marry woman wouldn't he have taken care of that right away. He made man and woman and they joined to have children, children of God just like all of us.


Well if we were intended to have guns then God would have given them to us from the beginning right? Nope.


----------



## zogman

We are so far off track I hope no one minds. 
Lets see you Libs spin this into the clouds oke:

Subject: Common Sense
> 
> 
> Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr. Common Sense. Mr. 
> Sense had been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he
was since 
> his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will be remembered as having cultivated such value lessons as knowing
when 
> to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that
life 
> isn't always fair. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies
(don't 
> spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not 
> kids, are in charge).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but
overbearing 
> regulations were set in place. - Reports of a six-year-old boy charged
with 
> sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school
for 
> using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an
unruly 
> student, only worsened his condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get
parental 
> consent to administer aspirin to a student; but, could not inform the
parents 
> when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became 
> businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize
that a 
> steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was
awarded 
> a huge settlement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his
wife, 
> Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is
survived 
> by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you 
> still remember him, pass this on; if not, join the majority and do
nothing.
>


----------



## buckseye

Tiger comparing inventing guns to creating humuns is as long a stretch as you've throwed at us I think. :lol:


----------



## DeltaBoy

Interesting...

Common Sense would have been to take care of this child before he reached the age of six... This is a complex problem in today's society and why it's so important to recognize that our youngest start to develop before birth. Sure children crap, bleed, cry, etc... But every time you read, react, change a diaper, or any other daily task children are learning.

Common sense?

I also wanted to bring up another point stated earlier... Where were the sportsman's issues during the Gov. Speech? Last year he touched on them a little bit, I just wonder what is going to happen this year. :-?


----------



## farmerj

MY SON

This is great, take a moment to read it, it will make your day! The ending will

surprise you.

Take my Son

A wealthy man and his son loved to collect rare works of art. They had everything in their collection, from Picasso to Raphael. They would often sit together and admire the great works of art.

When the Vietnam conflict broke out, the son went to war. He was very courageous and died in battle while rescuing another soldier. The father was notified and grieved deeply for his only son.

About a month later, just before Christmas, there was a knock at the door. A young man stood at the door with a large package in his hands.

He said, "Sir, you don't know me, but I am the soldier for whom your son gave his life. He saved many lives that day, and he was carrying me to safety when a bullet struck him in the heart and he died instantly. He often talked about you, and your love for art." The young man held out this package. "I know this isn't much. I'm not really a great artist, but I think your son would have wanted you to have this."

The father opened the package. It was a portrait of his son, painted by the young man. He stared in awe at the way the soldier had captured the personality of his son in the painting. The father was so drawn to the eyes that his own eyes welled up with tears. He thanked the young man and offered to pay him for the picture. "Oh, no sir, I could never repay what your son did for me. It's a gift."

The father hung the portrait over his mantle. Every time visitors came to his home he took them to see the portrait of his son before he showed them any of the other great works he had collected.

The man died a few months later. There was to be a great auction of his paintings. Many influential people gathered, excited over seeing the great paintings and having an opportunity to purchase one for their collection.

On the platform sat the painting of the son. The auctioneer pounded his gavel. "We will start the bidding with this picture of the son. Who will bid for this picture?"

There was silence.

Then a voice in the back of the room shouted, "We want to see the famous paintings. Skip this one."

But the auctioneer persisted. "Will somebody bid for this painting. Who will start the bidding? $100, $200?"

Another voice angrily. "We didn't come to see this painting. We came to see the Van Goghs, the Rembrandts. Get on with the real bids!"

But still the auctioneer continued. "The son! The son! Who'll take the son?"

Finally, a voice came from the very back of the room. It was the longtime gardener of the man and his son. "I'll give $10 for the painting." Being a poor man, it was all he could afford.

"We have $10, who will bid $20?"

"Give it to him for $10. Let's see the masters."

"$10 is the bid, won't someone bid $20?"

The crowd was becoming angry. They didn't want the picture of the son.

They wanted the more worthy investments for their collections.

The auctioneer pounded the gavel. "Going once, twice, SOLD for $10!"

A man sitting on the second row shouted, "Now let's get on with the collection!"

The auctioneer laid down his gavel. "I'm sorry, the auction is over."

"What about the paintings?"

"I am sorry. When I was called to conduct this auction, I was told of a secret stipulation in the will. I was not allowed to reveal that stipulation until this time. Only the painting of the son would be auctioned. Whoever bought that painting would inherit the entire estate, including the paintings.

The man who took the son gets everything!"

God gave His son 2,000 years ago to die on the cross. Much like the auctioneer, His message today is: "The son, the son, who'll take the son?"

Because, you see, whoever takes the Son gets everything.

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, WHO SO EVER BELIEVETH, SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE...THAT'S LOVE

Please send this to ten people and back to the one who sent it to you.

Do whatever you like, but remember that maybe "one" of the people you might have taken the time to send this to, may be just the person who needs to hear this message. You have a choice to make."

God Bless.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> [
> Really? Then who are you to tell anyone that they need to attend church weekly to be their holiest?


I haven't, so stick to the truth please. As a matter of fact I stated I was riding the fence on this one, that a person didn't need to go to church, but that I think it is intended that we gather. I think as a group we have support and learn from one another. I have never made a statement like your insinuation. Don't exaggerate what I say, people only need look back at our posts. It will be hard to respect you if you can not refrain from exaggerating what people say, and twisting the truth. I was not taking sides on this, but it appears you want me on the opposing side. This is simply childish argument, not debate, and you are regressing.


----------



## Storm

*Tiger Wrote:*



> I'm not sure what you mean by deepen my faith. By no means could my religon ever be changed, either by coersion or physical force. I know that God is the almighty being, the creator of all and Jesus is his son. Nothing could ever change my mind about that either. How much deeper could my faith be?


Tiger I'm glad to hear that you have a faith life and that you believe that God is the almighty being and creator. Guess what, God is Pro-Life and against same sex marriage or homosexuality. So your liberal views are going directly against as you put it correctly "God the almighty being and creator."

As I stated earlier we are *all* sinners, but as I have learned from experience attending church and studying the Bible has a direct correlation to morals and values. The guy who is activly trying to live his life according to God, will sin less. He will also attend a Church to express his faith and give his total attention to God. He wouldn't put God on the back burner and think about him while trying to catch a rainbow trout.

DeltaBoy sorry about getting off track with your thread. I don't live in North Dakota so I'm not up on the hunting rights issue, but I can say that I believe North Dakota benefits greatly from out of state hunters such as myself. In fact I am planning on doing some hunting up there next fall. Maybe I can swing by Michigan and pick up Tiger for a road trip!


----------



## zogman

Special THANK YOU, farmerj


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Tiger I'm glad to hear that you have a faith life and that you believe that God is the almighty being and creator. Guess what, God is Pro-Life and against same sex marriage or homosexuality. So your liberal views are going directly against as you put it correctly "God the almighty being and creator."


Who are you to tell someone that they don't have the right to sin? What if they do not follow the same religon, perhaps one with different beliefs? It is not your place to tell anyone that they must be saved from sin.


----------



## BigDaddy

Plainsman wrote:



> Bigdaddy, I understand Exodus goes with Revelations. I guess to get the most of Revelations you must read Exodus at the same time. Is that how you understand it also?


Revelations has much of the same images and themes as Ezekial. Therefore, it is recommended that you read Revelations in concert with Ezekial. I have not heard about the link with Exodus.


----------



## Plainsman

Normally when you quote someone you make comments about the quote. I could find no relationship between the quote from Storm and you comments.

I do have a question about your post. Does it mean you don't care what happens to people? Does it mean Storm shouldn't care about what happens to people? I certainly don't want to misinterpret. Which do you think is worse, telling them you think what they do is wrong, or not caring about the consequences they will face one day?

Bigdaddy

Thank you for the information. Maybe I didn't hear right Wednesday night. Or maybe both are pertinent.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I do have a question about your post. Does it mean you don't care what happens to people? Does it mean Storm shouldn't care about what happens to people? I certainly don't want to misinterpret. Which do you think is worse, telling them you think what they do is wrong, or not caring about the consequences they will face one day?


You have every right in the world to tell them that you feel what they are doing is wrong, but you have no rights to impose upon them laws which prohibit something based upon a religous document.


----------



## Plainsman

Here is how I look at it MT. We tell people, through laws, what they can and can't do all the time. Some things are easy, to understand. For example we can all agree that murder should be illegal, robbery should be illegal etc. Many will say that we have no business making laws against things that don't harm anyone else. This is where the argument begins. Try bringing pornography to one of your high school classes. Some may say that if no else sees it it's nobodies business. Tell the police that because you have the money and will not rob anyone that if you choose to use heroin in your own home it is none of their business. Try driving without a drivers license. Your not hurting anyone are you? These laws are passed because, if they effect and individual or not, society has decided it is bad for society. We as a society may impose laws that we see fit. Therein lies the danger for the second amendment also. If the media, and anti gun people can convince enough ignorant (not stupid) people they can amend the constitution. It matters not what we base our beliefs on.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

The matter with that is that buying drugs supports a drug dealer who likely may support some sort of crime with that money, be it a gang or going after someone who didn't pay up. People can get hurt. If two gays decide to marry, and can preform all of the same duties as a man and a woman save having children, and cannot hurt anyone else, we have no right to deny them that right.


----------



## Storm

Tiger,
In your words you said that God is the almighty being and creator. You are exactly right, but when I point out that God is pro-life, and against homosexuality as stated in scripture you come back by saying that I don't have a right to tell someone not to sin. Do you want to go through life sinning freely or trying not to sin? There is a huge difference.

Let me ask you a question Tiger, do you believe homosexuality is a sin?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> Tiger,
> In your words you said that God is the almighty being and creator. You are exactly right, but when I point out that God is pro-life, and against homosexuality as stated in scripture you come back by saying that I don't have a right to tell someone not to sin. Do you want to go through life sinning freely or trying not to sin?  There is a huge difference.
> 
> Let me ask you a question Tiger, do you believe homosexuality is a sin?


You just missed that point. If you believe that God is the almighty, and that Jesus is his son, then homosexuality would be a sin. However if someone does not believe in any religon, believes in a different religon, or is apathetic about it then you don't have the right to tell them that they cannot do something which cannot harm them or others.


----------



## Plainsman

Yes, when you get deeper into the drug thing I agree. I was looking at it in a shallower context and it was not the best analogy. However if society deems same sex marriage as detrimental to the best interest of our social system, then it will not be allowed. I wish no ills to the people themselves, as a matter of fact I wish them the best, but at the same time I am offended by their actions. The family has been diminished in America, and this will be another nail in the coffin of family values. Family values have diminished greatly over the past 20 years. This will only result in less respect for the family unit. Diminish family values and religious values, and you diminish American society.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> However if someone does not believe in any religon, believes in a different religon, or is apathetic about it then you don't have the right to tell them that they cannot do something which cannot harm them or others.


the hell i don't

i was in key west with my wife and girls.......two guys on the street open mouth kissin and gropin one another. i told them in no uncertain terms what i thought of their actions...... i find it repulsive and for damn sure don't want my kids around it. one of them gave me this go to hell look but didn't say anything........ i was about to open a can of woop azz...... there ain't a sissy alive that can beat me in a fair fight.

pointer


----------



## Storm

One problem with our society today is that we can't say something is wrong when it truely is. The issue of homosexuality totally falls into this category. So eventually nothing is wrong and anyone can do just about anything they want. Homosexuality is a sin always has been and always will be. I don't hate the homosexual, honestly I feel sorry for them, but I hate the sin. Tiger you asked how same sex marriage hurts society. It underminds heterosexual marriage by saying hey men can sleep with men and this is the same as a man and women. That is totally a lie, and as the Bible says an "abomination." Why did Christ institute marriage in the first place? The most obvious and pratical reason is to have children. Can two men make a child? Tiger you also have to realize that the homosexual movement has an agenda. Same sex marriage is just another step to desensitize society into thinking homosexuality is o.k. As society becomes desensitized to this "abomination" it starts to affect more and more of society. Now in some states they teach 1st graders that homosexuality is an "alternative lifestyle." I don't want my daughter learning that two men having sex is an alternative lifestyle.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The family has been diminished in America, and this will be another nail in the coffin of family values. Family values have diminished greatly over the past 20 years. This will only result in less respect for the family unit. Diminish family values and religious values, and you diminish American society.


What family values have we diminished? Boys have been secret homosexuals since the beginning of the United States. There are people with wives and children, who at the age of 50 come out of the closet. At least if we are open to it, and allow them to share their relationship like anyone else we wont have such problems any longer. That will do nothing but improve family values.



> the hell i don't
> 
> i was in key west with my wife and girls.......two guys on the street open mouth kissin and gropin one another. i told them in no uncertain terms what i thought of their actions...... i find it repulsive and for damn sure don't want my kids around it.


As stated... that is your right to tell them that you feel their actions are wrong. As also stated however you dont have the right to tell them that they can't get married based on a religous document which they may or may not believe in.



> It underminds heterosexual marriage by saying hey men can sleep with men and this is the same as a man and women.


How exactly does telling people that having sex with men is equal to having sex with women unermine it? There is still the base which supercedes it that "Thou shalt not commit adultery -Exodus 20:14"



> I don't want my daughter learning that two men having sex is an alternative lifestyle.


If you cannot teach your child that it is not right under your beliefs to commit homosexuality, it is your fault as a parent, not societies for accepting it.

You see Storm you speak of homosexuality as if it is wrong for all people. That is simply not true. It is only said to be wrong by certain religous documents. Telling someone that they have to follow the laws based on our religous document would be like if we were forced to pray multiple times a day under the laws given in the Koran. This country was built on the foundation of religous freedom. Prohibiting someone from doing something based on a singular religous document would be denying the rights that our forefathers died to establish, and is bad for America.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> You have every right in the world to tell them that you feel what they are doing is wrong, but you have no rights to impose upon them laws which prohibit something based upon a religous document.


So then we have no right to put people in jail for stealing, or murder, both being based on a religious document? Perhaps you should do some more studying on the laws of both man and God.

And by the way you still have not answered the question I asked in the tsunami thread. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## Storm

I think I have Tiger figured out. When you put him on the spot he won't answer and tough questions. He wouldn't do it on the abortion issue, he won't do it on the homosexual issue, and I'm sure he won't answer you question on the tsunami thread. Like a good liberal he wants to change the subject or come up with some totally off the wall comment that doesn't make any sense.

So before you write back Tiger and say what haven't I answered, I will ask you again do *you* think homosexuality is a sin? You have professed to be a Christain so we aren't talking about some atheist or another religion but *you*. And you mentioned that another religion might not view homosexuality as being wrong.....name *one* for me. Muslims despise homosexuality, evangelicals and Catholics are outspoken about how wrong it is. Mormons who pride themselves on family values are completely against homosexuality. You will not find any mainstream religious sect that thinks homosexuality is o.k.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> So then we have no right to put people in jail for stealing, or murder, both being based on a religious document? Perhaps you should do some more studying on the laws of both man and God.


No, you cannot. You can however put them in jail based on the fact that it can hurt someone else or themselves.



> So before you write back Tiger and say what haven't I answered, I will ask you again do you think homosexuality is a sin?


The reason why I didn't answer that is because its a poorly written question. If you are a Christian, yes it is a sin. If not, it may be or it may not. I have never had the urge to commit it, so whether it is a sin or not does not personally matter to me, but as I stated as it is said to be a sin in the Bible I think it is.



> And you mentioned that another religion might not view homosexuality as being wrong.....name one for me.


Hinduism, there's your one. The greater mass of people that I was pointing towards however was that of people without any religon.



> mainstream religious sect that thinks homosexuality is o.k.


So its ok to discriminate if it's not "mainstream"?

If you would like to make a thread (preferably with my name in it for maximum attempted embarrassment) to confront all of the issues which I have evidently danced around, please go right ahead.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> So then we have no right to put people in jail for stealing, or murder, both being based on a religious document? Perhaps you should do some more studying on the laws of both man and God.
> 
> No, you cannot. You can however put them in jail based on the fact that it can hurt someone else or themselves.


I guess I'm not clear here M_T, you said that we can't impose laws on people that have a basis in religious documents. Since stealing and murder are both addressed in the Ten Commandments, they would both meet your situation. So can we or can we not have laws to govern these two activities?



Militant_Tiger said:


> If you would like to make a thread (preferably with my name in it for maximum attempted embarrassment) to confront all of the issues which I have evidently danced around, please go right ahead.


Ah, I think that would take up too much bandwidth. :roll: :lol: :lol:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I guess I'm not clear here M_T, you said that we can't impose laws on people that have a basis in religious documents. Since stealing and murder are both addressed in the Ten Commandments, they would both meet your situation. So can we or can we not have laws to govern these two activities?


Yet again you have missed the point by a mile. Simply because the ten commandments states that murder and stealing are sins and those also happen to be grounds for being arrested does not mean that it is social law BECAUSE it is in the ten commandments. I will restate my point. You cannot base laws upon religous documents.



> Ah, I think that would take up too much bandwidth.


If you are not willing to address the problem in a forum where I have a fair chance of answering them, desist from complaining about it.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> Yet again you have missed the point by a mile. Simply because the ten commandments states that murder and stealing are sins and those also happen to be grounds for being arrested does not mean that it is social law BECAUSE it is in the ten commandments. I will restate my point. You cannot base laws upon religous documents.


I'm begining to think that you don't have a point about anything. These sins are against the law because God included them in his Ten Commandments and our forefathers felt that because they were against Gods law, AND, they were crimes against our fellow humans, they should be included in social law. Again, I suggest that you do a bit more studying on the history of social laws, most of which are founded in one way or another upon, or have a basis in, religious doctrine.



Militant_Tiger said:


> If you are not willing to address the problem in a forum where I have a fair chance of answering them, desist from complaining about it.


Boy, talk about missing the point, mine went right over your head, didn't it. But, since you brought it up, I have no problem addressing questions in an open forum, however, in most cases you duck direct questions, coming up with crap that has nothing to do with the original question, or just refuse to acknowledge it. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## zogman

Weedhopper says

[/quote]I have a fair chance of answering them,


> In all your 1354 posts you have never answered any question. You spun into space every time uke: :******: uke: :******: uke: :******: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I'm begining to think that you don't have a point about anything. These sins are against the law because God included them in his Ten Commandments and our forefathers felt that because they were against Gods law, AND, they were crimes against our fellow humans, they should be included in social law. Again, I suggest that you do a bit more studying on the history of social laws, most of which are founded in one way or another upon, or have a basis in, religious doctrine.


This society was based on freedom of religon. Forcing everyone to abide by the laws of one religous document goes directly in the face of what America stands for. Simply because the 10 commandments and some of the laws we have today coincide does not mean that they were based off of the 10 commandments.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Militant_Tiger said:


> I'm beginning to think that you don't have a point about anything. These sins are against the law because God included them in his Ten Commandments and our forefathers felt that because they were against Gods law, AND, they were crimes against our fellow humans, they should be included in social law. Again, I suggest that you do a bit more studying on the history of social laws, most of which are founded in one way or another upon, or have a basis in, religious doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> This society was based on freedom of religion. Forcing everyone to abide by the laws of one religious document goes directly in the face of what America stands for. Simply because the 10 commandments and some of the laws we have today coincide does not mean that they were based off of the 10 commandments.
Click to expand...

Freedom to practice their choice of Christan religion and not one controlled and run by the Government. This country was based upon Christan beliefs and principals. They did not want our Gov to be like England with the only Christan religion being the " Church of England! Learn your history and the thoughts of our founding fathers. Spend some time and read the Federalist Papers, Jefferson and Washington and Hancock's diaries would be additional sources but not the only ones.
This underscores again that you are simply repeating what others are telling you as a fact instead of finding the answers for yourself.

One bit of advice when you read this is to get a reference book that translates the use and meanings of words then vs now. You cannot apply modern day context to that time period and come up with the true meaning of the writings.

By Easter if you take this challenge you may have an original thought instead of having them crafted for you by those intent upon controlling you for their political gains.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Freedom to practice their choice of Christan religion and not one controlled and run by the Government. This country was based upon Christan beliefs and principals. They did not want our Gov to be like England with the only Christan religion being the " Church of England! Learn your history and the thoughts of our founding fathers.


How can you govern people under one religon, and yet still allow freedom of religon. That is absolutely redundant. Simply because there is not a federally mandated religon would not mean that it was free if there were still enforced laws derived directly from a singular religous document!



> This underscores again that you are simply repeating what others are telling you as a fact instead of finding the answers for yourself.


This underscores that you are staring the facts straight in the eye, and denying them.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

During the period that people came to the what is today the US from Britain, it many times was for the purpose of getting out from under the Church of England to practice their Christan Religious beliefs. Not Muslim, or Buddha, or even atheism.

You must be getting annoyed as the tone of your responses are sounding more and more like someone defending a position they no longer believe in.

Once again the challenge is that by Easter you have done a little research on this by reading the words of the drafters of the Constitution and trying to understand them and the beliefs they held.

Teaching and learning history is not taking what you think is fact but finding out what is fact. Start here on expanding your knowledge of this Country and her founders.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> During the period that people came to the what is today the US from Britain, it many times was for the purpose of getting out from under the Church of England to practice their Christan Religious beliefs. Not Muslim, or Buddha, or even atheism.


I am still in awe of just how dense you are. Simply because the lions share of them were Christian doesn't mean that they were trying to find religous freedom for the Christians. They were trying to form a country where people of all religons could worship as they pleased, and not be ruled under unjust laws which were derived from a religous document.


----------



## buckseye

Now ya got me curious, remind me which unjust laws are derived from a relegious document? :wink:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> Now ya got me curious, remind me which unjust laws are derived from a relegious document? :wink:


The exact one that we are conversing about, a ban on gay marriage. The only basis for denying them their right is held within the pages of the Bible, or is used as a base thereof, and is thus unjust.


----------



## buckseye

The bible doesn't vote, the people do. We all base our choice on what information and experience with said information we have. To say voting is unjust, I guess I have seen that before too. But in a Democracy voting is what we do, living with the results of voting is also something we do. It's America and this is the American way.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> The bible doesn't vote, the people do. We all base our choice on what information and experience with said information we have. To say voting is unjust, I guess I have seen that before too. But in a Democracy voting is what we do, living with the results of voting is also something we do. It's America and this is the American way.


The point of a democracy is not to exclude the minority.


----------



## zogman

Weedhopper



> The point of a democracy is not to exclude the minority.


Did any say they wanted to........ The minority just does NOT rule you dipstick uke: :******: uke: :******: uke: :******:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Did any say they wanted to........ The minority just does NOT rule you dipstick


So in a society with freedom of religon it would be fine to tell muslims that they have to read the Bible and attend church weekly? That is the exact same thing as telling the gays that they cannot marry based on a singular religon.


----------



## Plainsman

I think you might as well drop the gay marriage thing MT. If you noticed the last election summed up what America thinks of gay marriage. Try thinking of something besides attacking Saudi Arabia, and gay marriage. Your obsessed with both.

No one is saying that Muslims have to go to church. They can still worship whoever they want. We just don't want the government infringing on our rights. Don't forget separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Zell Miller all the way, now there is a democrat I like.


----------



## buckseye

> So in a society with freedom of religon it would be fine to tell muslims that they have to read the Bible and attend church weekly? That is the exact same thing as telling the gays that they cannot marry based on a singular religon


.

Nobody is telling anyone what to do, the majority makes the rules and it's up to you to play by them or not. Society frowns on people who make their own rules. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Militant_Tiger said:


> During the period that people came to the what is today the US from Britain, it many times was for the purpose of getting out from under the Church of England to practice their Christan Religious beliefs. Not Muslim, or Buddha, or even atheism.
Click to expand...

I am still in awe of just how dense you are. Simply because the lions share of them were Christian doesn't mean that they were trying to find religious freedom for the Christians. They were trying to form a country where people of all religions could worship as they pleased, and not be ruled under unjust laws which were derived from a religious document.[/quote

man your REALLY REALLY DENSE! Quakers,where some of the first. Go look at the persecution that they where under from the Church of England. Simple search should suffice to clear up this little bit of information for you!

If I where your parents I would seriously think of taking legal action against the school districts you have attended!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> I think you might as well drop the gay marriage thing MT. If you noticed the last election summed up what America thinks of gay marriage. Try thinking of something besides attacking Saudi Arabia, and gay marriage. Your obsessed with both.
> 
> No one is saying that Muslims have to go to church. They can still worship whoever they want. We just don't want the government infringing on our rights. Don't forget separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Zell Miller all the way, now there is a democrat I like.


Thats because Saudi Arabia and gay marriage are two things that America is doing completely wrong. Telling gays that they can't marry is like telling athiests that they can't marry because they are sinners.



> We just don't want the government infringing on our rights.


Really? I doubt the gays want it infringing on their rights either.

Zell Miller is insane.



> Nobody is telling anyone what to do, the majority makes the rules and it's up to you to play by them or not. Society frowns on people who make their own rules.


So its ok to make unjust laws against the minority because they don't have as much power? Doesn't that go against everything that America stands for?



> man your REALLY REALLY DENSE! Quakers,where some of the first. Go look at the persecution that they where under from the Church of England. Simple search should suffice to clear up this little bit of information for you!


Sweet Jesus... America was founded for RELIGOUS FREEDOM. That does not mean Christian freedom! It was made so that people of ALL religons and even those without religon could live without being forced to abide by law based on religons that they didn't believe in. You need to do some more reading on the founding fathers.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger Sweet Jesus... America was founded for RELIGOUS FREEDOM. That does not mean Christian freedom! It was made so that people of ALL religons and even those without religon could live without being forced to abide by law based on religons that they didn't believe in. You need to do some more reading on the founding fathers.[/quote said:


> It doesn't mean Christian freedom? You could have fooled me. Christian freedom does not mean that anyone else looses freedom MT. What is this obsession about keeping Christians down? Your more worried about Muslims, Hindu, everything but Christian. Read Revelations MT, it describes the world then just the way you want it now.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> Thats because Saudi Arabia and gay marriage are two things that America is doing completely wrong. Telling gays that they can't marry is like telling athiests that they can't marry because they are sinners.


try practicin homosexuality in saudia arabia and you will most likely come up missin yo head.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Zell Miller is insane


but....but....but..... he is a democrat.

pointer


----------



## pointer99

Ron Gilmore said:


> [
> If I where your parents I would seriously think of taking legal action against the school districts you have attended!


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :toofunny:

weed hopper do you know what this is?------> :fiddle: ......it's the smallest violin in the world playin my heart bleeds for you.

too funny ron. hehehe

pointer


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> Zell Miller is insane.


Now here is a definate case of the pot calling the kettle black. M_T sometimes I think you are more insane that anyone I know, and over the years I've met some really insane people, and committed them. 

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> It doesn't mean Christian freedom? You could have fooled me. Christian freedom does not mean that anyone else* looses *freedom MT. What is this obsession about keeping Christians down? Your more worried about Muslims, Hindu, everything but Christian. Read Revelations MT, it describes the world then just the way you want it now.


Oh but under your proposed ban on gay marriage, that is exactly what it does. I am not trying to keep Christians down, just trying to keep them equal with everyone else.



> try practicin homosexuality in saudia arabia and you will most likely come up missin yo head.


Is that really the goal that we have set for ourselves? Being better than a country that support terror?



> Zell Miller is insane
> 
> but....but....but..... he is a democrat.


He however doesn't stand for what the democrats stand for. He is also stark raving mad.


----------



## buckseye

> So its ok to make unjust laws against the minority because they don't have as much power? Doesn't that go against everything that America stands for?


Yeh this way we don't have a situation like 18 year olds voting they can retire and recieve a pension then make every one over 65 go back to work. Do you think that will ever happen?


----------



## seabass

Plainsman said:


> I think you might as well drop the gay marriage thing MT. If you noticed the last election summed up what America thinks of gay marriage. Try thinking of something besides attacking Saudi Arabia, and gay marriage. Your obsessed with both.


In my opinion, if any political party is obsessed with homosexulity, its the republicans. I've mentioned this before but in the Netherlands, homosexual marriage has been legal for decades. Does this mean that homosexuals run rampant in the street like packs of dogs? Does this mean that it in anyway effects how heterosexual people do their day-to-day routine? Does this change the way children are raised in the school system? Does it mean that the Dutch Christians are a bunch of heathens for allowing, nay, supporting homosexual rights? 
No. 
Now, let me be honest, I've yet to see any homosexual couple in public in my 4.5 months of living here but I do know that some of the most popular politicians were openly gay. So then you might respond, "them Dutch must not be Bible-readin' folk." Not so I don't believe. I am not going to search for the actual break-down of religions in Holland but I do know that Sunday is a day to not work. Indeed, most shops of towns less than 150,000 people close down on the sabbath. People ride their bikes to church on Sunday in their church clothes and the rest of the day is spent at rest. This I do see. The church is in the center of every village in Holland, a constant reminder to live a life pleasing to God. The divorce rate in Holland is 33%, considerably less than the U.S. It appears to me that Christianity has more of a presence in Holland than in the U.S., but thats just my opinion.

Some of these posts remind me of the movie "Mississippi Burning." Using the Bible as a shield to disciminate against their own fears. I think Mark Twain wrote "travel is lethal to narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and predjudice."


----------



## Plainsman

I wouldn't call them heathens. The question isn't really a fair one because it is a setup. I answer no, and then am asked, why then do I not agree with you. If I answer yes then I am labeled radical, and separated from reasonable people ridding the fence on this debate. It is an attempt by you to give me two bad choices. Like the old country song says " I may have been born in the dark, but it wasn't last night".

A favorite cliché of my long departed mother was " the path to hell is paved with good intentions". If this is the path that the kind, well meaning, but bible illiterate Netherlands wishes to set their feet upon there is nothing I can do about it. If this is the path you and MT wish to set Americas feet upon then I can debate that.

Seabass wrote:


> I think Mark Twain wrote "travel is lethal to narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and predjudice."


Getting on your high horse are you Seabass? This is like lonelyrancher. He explained how many places he had lived as if it had any bearing on the subject we were discussing in that thread. Mark Twain lived in an era where travel and communications were very restricted by modern standards. Today the world, by satellite, is brought into the homes of even the most common man. What you and lonelyracher have attempted to do is set yourself above those who debate you, in the minds of the reader, as superiorly sophisticated. You fellows are legends in your own mind.

You attempt to portray my resistance to gay marriage as prejudice. I would not lift a finger to harm a gay person, but I can not condone gay marriage. It is not my place to ridicule any person, but I am free to accept or not accept their actions. So far America still allowes me that freedom.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> You attempt to portray my resistance to gay marriage as prejudice. I would not lift a finger to harm a gay person, but I can not condone gay marriage. It is not my place to ridicule any person, but I am free to accept or not accept their actions. So far America still allowes me that freedom.


You know America allowed us the freedom of slavery for many years as well. You may not lift a finger, but you have most certainly lifted your pen. I still don't see the logic of how freedom of religon allows people to be persecuted under one religon which they may not necissarily believe in.


----------



## buckseye

> I still don't see the logic of how freedom of religon allows people to be persecuted under one religon which they may not necissarily believe in.


Who is being persecuted? Laws are laws, if there were enuff gays to win the vote we would all be able to see them in their full glory :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

It matters not if they believe it (Christianity that is)(well actually it does), or if your believe it, what matters is that I believe it, and I must follow my conscience as you do yours. I have not put my pen to prejudice against them as people, as a matter of fact just the opposite, I have simply put my pen against gay marriage. In the end this will be decided by a court far above the "supreme" court. Guess what MT, you don't get to be on the jury, there is none.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Who is being persecuted? Laws are laws, if there were enuff gays to win the vote we would all be able to see them in their full glory


Why does the fact that there are fewer gays than straight give you the right to force them to follow an unjust law? Simply because you outnumber a group does not mean that it is right to impose such laws upon them.



> It matters not if they believe it (Christianity that is)(well actually it does), or if your believe it, what matters is that I believe it, and I must follow my conscience as you do yours. I have not put my pen to prejudice against them as people, as a matter of fact just the opposite, I have simply put my pen against gay marriage. In the end this will be decided by a court far above the "supreme" court. Guess what MT, you don't get to be on the jury, there is none.


So because you believe in a religon you should be allowed to impose laws based on your religous document on them? How about if the followers of Islam were able to tell us that we had to pray four times daily? You would certainly not think it fair, because we do not believe in their religon. Unfortunately your kind have always had a hard time empathizing, and probably always will.



> In the end this will be decided by a court far above the "supreme" court.


Am I to understand that because I do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone else that I am not a good Christian? You get a little more batty with each post plainsman.


----------



## buckseye

> Why does the fact that there are fewer gays than straight give you the right to force them to follow an unjust law?


Obviously it must not be unjust to the majority of voters, but then the majority is not gay. Is it unjust to you? :wink:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Obviously it must not be unjust to the majority of voters, but then the majority is not gay. Is it unjust to you?


You live in North Dakota. The majority of Americans do not. I am going to make it so that you cannot become married as a citizen of said state. Make sense?


----------



## buckseye

Nope... Does same sex marriage have to mean they are gay. Maybe they just want the financial benefits whatever they are.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> Nope... Does same sex marriage have to mean they are gay. Maybe they just want the financial benefits whatever they are.


Hey really? Wouldn't you think that a man and a woman could do that too for the exact same reasons?


----------



## buckseye

Yep.... I think most women do. Us men just want to be loved... :toofunny:


----------



## pointer99

buckseye said:


> Yep.... I think most women do. Us men just want to be loved... :toofunny:


 k: :bowdown: :bop: :jammin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

pointer


----------



## Plainsman

Militant Tiger wrote:


> Am I to understand that because I do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone else that I am not a good Christian? You get a little more batty with each post plainsman.


Plainsman previously wrote:


> I must follow my conscience as you do yours.


Why ask me, I'm batty rememer. Oh, and I think you said an idiot and many other things in previouse posts. So if you need a realiable answer to that ask your pastor.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Militant Tiger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I to understand that because I do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone else that I am not a good Christian? You get a little more batty with each post plainsman.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman previously wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I must follow my conscience as you do yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why ask me, I'm batty rememer. Oh, and I think you said an idiot and many other things in previouse posts. So if you need a realiable answer to that ask your pastor.
Click to expand...

Which preist do you look to who tells you that it is ok to impose the laws of your religon upon non believers? If you have heard this he is hardly a man of God.


----------



## Storm

I have to make one quick comment to SeaBass post a while back. He tried to point out that the Netherlands is some oasis of Christainity. The Netherlands is one of the most anti Christian secular societies in Europe. Drugs, and Prostitution are legal, so why not let two guys get married. I went and listened to a very promeniant Catholic speaker named Father Benedict Groeschel speak on this very topic. And he had just gotten back from the Netherlands where he gave a conference to new vocations to the priesthood. There is only one person studying for the priesthood in the whole country. That is how secular the netherlands has become. The rest of Europe isn't far behind. Look what the president of France has done by banning head scrafs and large crosses. They don't want any out word sign of religion.....Bad news.


----------



## Plainsman

MT wrote:


> Which preist do you look to who tells you that it is ok to impose the laws of your religon upon non believers? If you have heard this he is hardly a man of God.


MT get a grip. What I am telling you is ask someone more qualified than I. Sheesh ! You talk about others being judgmental read your posts over a few times. Oh you should ask a pastor or priest who doesn't look at the Bible as a buffet - (pick what you want reject the rest).

I said nothing about how good of a Christian you are, yet you insinuated I did. I said nothing about talking to priests that said impose my laws, but you are now insinuating that. You interpret what I say in the worst possible way you can. I'm in good company though you do it to some other very good people also.

I think this has gone far beyond the North Dakota Governor post. MT try not hijack posts. Let people continue the subject they wish. If you want to argue about other things start a new post. This isn't fair to those who wish to talk about the political scene in North Dakota.

I didn't start that one other post with your name to embarrass you as you insinuated in another post, I started it because you derailed a post in the rifle form and turned it into a political argument. If you want to talk about something in particular start a post.


----------



## seabass

Plainsman said:


> Seabass wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Mark Twain wrote "travel is lethal to narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and predjudice."
> 
> 
> 
> Getting on your high horse are you Seabass?
Click to expand...

Plainsman, thank-you for setting me straight. I had no idea that a quote pushing people to view other cultures first hand was pretentious.

Storm, I'm sure you are right about the few Dutch being called into the priesthood but I wonder if your pastor left Amsterdam? You couldn't visit downtown Minneapolis and say that city characterizes the midwest, right? Same goes for Amsterdam. Again, its just my opinion but the feeling I get is more of a Christian presence in the smaller cities compared to similiar-sized cities in the U.S. As far as the legalization of certain drugs and prostitution, thats an interesting topic I think but will let it go for now.

Plainsman, I don't quite understand how you can single out Militiant Tiger for "high-jacking" this thread when you and everyone else has been taking part in it as well.


----------



## DeltaBoy

I get a kick out of how this thread went a slightly different direction, but hey that's why we have a forum to discuss or create topics. I have enjoyed reading about all your view points about church, gays, etc.

It's an interesting thread and I think it should keep going, lots of good view points from everyone. :wink:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT get a grip. What I am telling you is ask someone more qualified than I. Sheesh ! You talk about others being judgmental read your posts over a few times. Oh you should ask a pastor or priest who doesn't look at the Bible as a buffet - (pick what you want reject the rest).


I am still unaware of who exactly you have talked to that told you that it is ok to force your religon on people with different beliefs.



> I said nothing about how good of a Christian you are, yet you insinuated I did. I said nothing about talking to priests that said impose my laws, but you are now insinuating that. You interpret what I say in the worst possible way you can. I'm in good company though you do it to some other very good people also.


You told me that the matter would be decided by the highest of jurys. It is rather obvious by this statement that you are trying to say that I will be looked down upon for my approval of allowing people the freedom of persecution under religons which they do not choose to follow.

As for the preist, you told me to talk to a pastor who would explain the entire concept (again obviously trying to point out that I am wrong, also insinuating that said pastor would condone the removal of marriage rights from gays).


----------

