BrookValley.
-
Posts
2,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by BrookValley.
-
-
Well, that didn't happen to any of us that weekend, but the rest of us have now had the experience of compulsively checking an internet homeschool forum for the status of a geriatric dog penis. I mean, that's a new one. :laugh:
I'm sorry it ended with an unexpected vet bill (I've got horses; I know how bad those bills hurt!), but I'm glad your pup is ok!
-
10
-
-
From the link above. Discuss?
-- Christians from across the nation will converge on the neighborhood of Federal Court Judge David Bunning, today. Judge Bunning has illegally and with malice charged Mrs. Kim Davis, with contempt of his court order forcing her to legitimize illegal marriage certificates to individuals of the same sex in Rowan County.We are calling for the sheriff of Rowan County to immediately arrest Judge David Bunning upon his entering the courthouse on Thursday, Sept. 10 for illegally incarcerating Davis and impeding her from performing her duties as county clerk. Judge Bunning is in contempt of the Court of Almighty God and the constitutions of both Kentucky and the United States.
Kim Davis has broken no law. There is no law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States that would force her to issue marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex.
She is not in violation of God's Law: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
She is not in violation of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
She is not in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky section 233a: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
She has not violated any US or Kentucky law! There is no Kentucky or US law that makes same sex marriages legal or instructs clerks to issue licenses for them. The Supreme Court cannot make law – only the legislative branch of our government (Congress) can make law and Congress has made no such law!
Judge David Bunning is in contempt of God's Law, and the laws contained in both constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
There's so much ignorance here, starting with 1) "God's Law" (whatever that means, because we all know there are a zillion different interpretations of religious doctrine among Christian denominations) is irrelevant; this isn't a theocracy, and 2) no, the SCOTUS cannot make a law--what they can do is deem a law(s) unconstitutional, which is what has happened across the country. It is now illegal (against the law) to refuse to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses. It ain't all that complicated. And then the court told her she was not following the law, and she refused to comply. So she was jailed for being in contempt of court. She did break the law.
But what gets me about this kind of ignorance is it just feeds the false persecution complex, which really, Kim Davis has just become a pawn for. You've got these supporters falling all over her to hold her up as some sort of martyr, but they've completely missed the mark (intentionally or unintentionally) about what this is about or even how the system works. And in the process, they're just creating more unnecessary divisiveness.
-
8
-
-
Explain this double standard.
-
If you do go with foam of some type, I bet you could find a textured spray paint that would look like that lizard!
-
1
-
-
Sew simple cone shapes out of those cheap rectangular pieces of craft felt, stuff, and attach? Ive even seen it in snake print.
ETA: or maybe even just cut triangular shapes out of felt and not make them 3-d?
I made a unicorn horn out of styrofoam cones you can get in the floral section of craft stores--you could carve them down to be pointier and paint--but I'm thinking you'd need too many, and they'd get too cumbersome to wear? Logistically likely too hard to attach to the rest of the costume, too.
-
1
-
-
O_oI have always found the whole separation from church and state quite complicated, as most of our founding fathers were religious men, and like it or not, our Constitution is directly affected by their beliefs. Atheists might want to believe that politics and faith are fully separated, but it doesn't matter how much they complain or pout about it both are very much linked. The Constitution is very much linked with the 10 Commandments.
Have you actually read it?
Here, maybe try some James Madison on the subject: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
Oh, and sweetpea? I don't pout.
-
4
-
-
I won't tip less than 20% (that's the average anyplace I've been around the country recently) unless service is truly sub-par, and in this situation I'd just toss extra on the table. If asked I'd say why. I think service was acceptable or better, and I want to leave 20%.
I'm very blunt in real life. Anyone eating out with me would know this and not be offended. :laugh:
-
And while some people justified slavery by twisting scripture and claiming a Christian basis, the Africans selling their own were under no such delusions. Slavery happened because humans are humans, not because some humans are Christians.
Don't forget that the long fight to abolish slavery, at least in England, was led by devout Christians, and it was based on their understanding and application of Christianity's moral principles. I don't know as much about the fight on this side of the pond, but one example is that the Christian college I attended was founded by people who had connections to the underground railroad, and a much revered abolitionist is buried and memorialized on the college's campus.
For many of the early to middle years of this republic, the church and organizations spun off from the church were the de facto social service agencies and reform groups that addressed many of the social problems of the time, usually under names like The Society for This or for That.
Never said, nor would I say, that slavery happened because some humans were Christians. Never said Christians were not involved in the abolitionist movement. Don't mistake me for being anti-Christian; it's not true, and it's irrelevant to the point.
What church? Define devout Christian. The country was then, as it is now, kinda diverse when it came to religion. I doubt your particular flavor of Christianity has a whole lot in common with the Quaker church, for example, which was quite active in the abolitionist movement in the early days of the U.S. My local Quaker meeting is very open and affirming of LGBT persons, and has performed marriage ceremonies for quite awhile now--very long-standing social justice stance.
-
8
-
-
I don't know. Truly, I don't. I do know that, historically, the one government that God set up was a relationship between himself and his people. When later on the nation asked for a king, He said, essentially, "Why? You have me."
There are many things I don't have answers for, and I don't expect to on this side of death. Why did God single out "a chosen people?" He say that his intention was to bless all the earth (all nations) through what He was going through the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel. Why did He choose to work in that way? I don't know. But I know enough about God and who He is to know that I trust him.
On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well.
OMG! what "new meanings and extensions" are those?! The founding fathers, while not perfect, were pretty frickin' spot on. They knew society would change, that our country was not founded in a vacuum or destined to be static. They recognized their imperfections, and accounted for it. Hence the constitution. It's kinda cool.
Why is progress so scary? I ask in sincerity. People I love and respect have told me they cling to their "conservative" ways because the thought of changing things is frightening, but they cannot articulate why. I want to know why.
-
9
-
-
But there are also Christians who do not chose to live celibate lives yet don't feel they are knowingly and willingly sinning against God. Your belief shouldn't trump theirs. There are those who are Christian and gay who have also grieved for humanity and what they felt was a "thumbing their nose" at God because they refused to give others the rights, respect, love, and kindness they deserved.
I definitely believe His ways will result in the greatest good my family and for my children. That is why when my dd told us she was gay, she was still welcomed and loved the same as always. She is not judged or made to feel less in our home and family and that is most definitely best for her. Going through all of this has also brought her closer to her faith and God so I have zero doubt we've handled it the right way and she is who God made her to be.
I just want to be sappy (i.e., really out of character :laugh: ) for a minute and let you know how much I appreciate your posts and your stories about your obvious acceptance and love for your daughter. It truly makes me a little less bitter. It's really this kind of thing that gives me hope, even more than Supreme Court decisions.
-
17
-
-
<snip>
I would love to see this thread turn into a catalog of how homeschooling families and their communities are helping. I really would.
Yes, please.
-
1
-
-
As with us all, your personal philosophy, your worldview, colors your interpretation of the facts at hand. You find Glen Beck (not sure I spelled his name right, but whatever) repugnant for offering aid to Christian families. From reading upthread, it's a bit unclear who the aid is going to, as there is some ambiguity in what the organization itself has said it is doing.
Let's assume that he is indeed offering help only to Christian families. I can think of several entirely legitimate reasons for that, primarily because it takes resources on the ground to accomplish something, and I know from a podcast and a video or two, months and months ago, that he or people close to him have been involved in a geographical area in which the aggressors are ISIL, and the displaced and beleaguered refugees from that area who need help are not Muslims, they are Christians and Yazidis.
I don't find it offensive at all for someone to be involved with helping people in a certain area, or working with a certain people group or population, and therefore declaring that your efforts will help such and such.
I'm really tired of people -- both in the world at large and also on this board -- being so easily offended and always finding reasons to disparage and malign others, not just their work, but their motives. Several in this thread have disparaged Glen Beck, but honestly, he and his organization are acting. Good for them. (Now if we found out that his or any other organization was keeping half the money for admin costs, then I'd be :glare:. )
I am not saying this to defend Glen Beck. I'm saying this so that we might be better people by seeking first to understand (an old Dale Carnegie quote, but a very wise life principle).
My point has absolutely nothing to do with a specific group having a specific focus and specifically helping persons within said specific focus. Of course we will probably first look to our own communities, our church families, etc., when supporting a charity, donating to a cause, etc. Of course we may find that a particular area or community really speaks to us, and we may focus there. That's absolutely not my point at all. My point is few of the refugees are Christian. Most are Muslim. To concentrate only on the Christian families means you're ignoring the majority. I'm speaking specifically about this humanitarian crisis happening right now. I'm actually just grossly oversimplifying the issue, really. These are PEOPLE. Period.
Also, don't tell me I find Beck repugnant for offering aid to Christian families. That's not even remotely what I was getting at, and everyone reading this knows it. Anyone who isn't a sorry excuse for a human being wants the atrocities committed against Christians and ANYONE else in this region stopped.
-
I would just remind people once again that Christianity isn't the only religion that considers homosexual relations a sin.
Nor are all people who don't like homosexuality religious.
It's not as if gay people would be fully integrated and appreciated if only Christians would shut up.
I don't disagree with you on those points, but I would like to remind people that the majority of participants in this thread (and the majority disagree with Kim Davis and are quite accepting of LGBT persons and of legalizing gay marriage) are Christian.
(A little fact that makes my little jaded heart a little less hard.)
-
8
-
-
But can you understand that if I believe that God is supreme, that His ways are the ways that will result in the greatest good for me, my children, my nation, for humanity, how could I not grieve at yet. one. more. way. in which this nation, at this place and time, is thumbing its nose at God?!? Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived. (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)
And lest you think it is just me, one person with this crazy viewpoint, there are more than a few people who are gay who chose to live celibate lives because they don't want to knowingly and willingly sin against God.
Well, I kinda find it offensive to think that one needs to hold Judeo-Christian principles to live a life well lived, or that the positive things are exclusively Judeo-Christian. But I can set that aside, too.
I do understand that your religion teaches that the acceptance of which you call a sin is somehow a sign of overall moral decline, yes, and why that might trouble you. What I do not understand is 1) how or why you think those Judeo-Christian principles made this country a better place, when we have moved forward and away from so many of those things that did exist in the time our country was founded (slavery, unequal treatment of women, poor treatment of children/child labor, to name a few), often justified by said Judeo-Christian principles, or 2) why, again, strengthening your freedom to believe how you choose, no matter how the majority might disagree, is a bad thing.
-
9
-
-
That's patronizing and uncalled for.
And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK. We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is. You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line.
This is where my brain refuses to cooperate.
I can set aside the idea that you think gay marriage is a sin for the purposes of discussion. What I don't get is how the decision to legalize gay marriage across the country is somehow a threat to you, or why it is your bottom line, or why you wouldn't be dancing in the streets with the rest of us heathens. This is not a theocracy; the very idea is as un-American as it gets. So your religion doesn't get to make the laws, and neither does mine, and so on so forth. Correct? This is what protects our right to worship (or not) as we choose. This ensures that no particular religion, or any particular flavor of any particular religion, gets to call the shots. So by legalizing gay marriage, we're moving into a place where religion has less influence over laws (because really, the only justification for keeping gay marriage illegal, aside from being a nasty bigot, is religious. Obviously, you're in the "it's not ok because it's a sin," i.e., religious camp). Right? So does it not follow that this is both a victory for both those who disagree with gay marriage on the basis of their religion, AND the people who support it? Win-flippin'-win. Equal rights, religious freedoms are strengthened, etc., etc.
I just don't understand how any one, on either side of the issue itself, sees it as anything but strengthening separation of church and state and, therefore, strengthening religious freedom. Unless someone actually wants a theocracy, but that's just idiotic.
-
22
-
-
I confess I once opened a bag of chocolate chips I had planned to use in a recipe. I ended up needing to buy a new bag. [insert head hanging in shame smiley here]
Once? This is a regular occurrence here. I've taken to just buying two bags at a time as preparation for the inevitable.
-
2
-
-
Equating a bunch of non-equivalent issues - like rock music - with the truth of what marriage is is just ridiculous and you know it. There is absolutely no fear when one does what his conscience requires, and it is confusing that you find it fearful. I guess it was for you, back when you were a Catholic, but this isn't reality.
So, who gets to decide the "truth of what marriage is"? Because obviously my truth and your truth are two very different things. So why or by what means is yours the truth?
Keep in mind we do not live in a theocracy, so one specific religion or interpretation of any specific religious texts is not relevant.
Or do you support the idea of a theocracy?
-
10
-
-
Not all of us agree with that line of thinking. Yes, we are to take care of our families, but what does that mean? We have less than most people, but have a roof over our heads. We still took in a homeless family, thinned out soup, etc. Scripture says that if you have two coats and your neighbour has none. The reason is that a person only needs one coat. It nowhere says, make sure that your Christian neighbour has a coat before you give it to a non-Christian.
Oh, I know not all do. My apologies for the hasty post and what probably sounds like an unfair generalization. No, the bible ain't my book, but you (and most of my Christian friends and family) and me have a lot more in common than not, I'd wager. The post I responded to just struck a nerve.
-
1
-
-
No, this is a completely inappropriate, co-opted, and frankly, insulting comparison. Dismissed.
Really? How is it innapropriate?
-
It's not a matter of being more or less Christian - Christians are told to help brothers, other Christians, after assisting their own families. Then they can expand to help others outside of those two closer circles. It's triage of limited resources to those to whom one has higher responsibility. And that is a biblical principle repeated often throughout the Old and New Testament, both.
It would be like saying that if your cousin is starving, and a person a town over is starving, and you have one extra loaf of bread - is it more loving and responsible to help the stranger or family? Is the one who ignores the need of family but assists a stranger a better or more caring person?
But we're not talking about family; we're talking about people with equal need. Some will be Christian, many will be Muslim. So you would pick and choose the Christians first, because of biblical principle? And not give according to your ability and their need?
I find this repugnant, and it certainly only contributes to the reasons I find this whole bible of yours pretty lacking as a guide for morality.
-
7
-
-
BS.
If this were a year ago (or 5, 10, 20 years ago), and she were insisting on handing out marriage licenses to gay couples against state law, you'd be applauding her.
Such hypocrisy.
This is precisely because she adheres to the legal and moral standard that prevailed when she took the job. The Supreme Court moved the goalposts and unilaterally changed those standards that have prevailed throughout American history and state history.
That said, if it were me, I'd just step down if I felt I couldn't do the job, rather than go through all this because it will not matter. She is going down.
Like when they "moved the goalposts " and miscegenation laws were taken off the books?
Oh, the horror of equality! Hide your wife, hide your children!
-
11
-
-
Since this thread is continuing to go on and the moderator has deemed it to be non-political, I'll now write what I wanted to write several days ago...
Just because you would and many others would quit a job over something that requires you to do something that violates your faith shouldn't mean that this clerk must quit. She apparently doesn't want to resign.
People just want her to quietly go away. They want florists and bakers and pizza pie makers to just quietly go away and shut down their doors if they won't accept this new definition of marriage and participate in them. People holding to the traditional definition of marriages are facing fines and job loss--and now jail for refusing to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs.
I don't have the courage to do what she's doing. I probably wouldn't do it either, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be doing it. That used to be the beauty of religious liberty and freedom.
She's not in jail because of her religious beliefs.
Not being able to refuse to uphold the law based on religious belief = more freedom and protection of your religious belief.
So "beauty of religious liberty and freedom" equals allowing someone to deny others' rights, according to the law, based on that someone's religious belief? You don't see the problem there? You think you'd have more freedom if I could refuse to serve you based on my religious preferences?
-
9
-
-
Been there, done that, not riding that horse again.
Just wait.
The day will come where you will not be able to speak a politically-incorrect word without being turned in to the authorities, even by your own family, friends, or relatives, as a threat to stability. Ethnic and religious persecution and eradication of "enemies" has happened over and over in the course of history.
I said compelling, not conspiracy theory.
Who is being persecuted?
-
9
-
-
Baloney.
No thanks, I'm a vegetarian.
-
2
-
KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses
in The Chat Board
Posted
That's not how any of this works! :laugh: