<p>and low flying Blue Angels that annoy the livestock?</p>
<p>Theocracywatch.org, a public information project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University, has amassed a wealth of information about the rise of the Religious Right in the Republican party. The website introduction states: “While this site is not about Republicans, it is about Republican strategists who target people of a certain faith as a way to expand the base of their party, and about a very specific group of religious leaders who are using the Republican Party as a way to gain dominion over society.” </p>
<p>Interesting reading: <a href=“http://www.theocracywatch.org%5B/url%5D”>http://www.theocracywatch.org</a></p>
<p>I use the “degree of lethality” test. At the time the Second Amendment was written, you had to:</p>
<p>a) pour a charge of powder in the muzzle
b) load the ball
c) tamp down the wadding to get the whole collection compact at the rear of the barrell
d) pour a little powder for priming into the pan under the frizzen
e) ****, aim, fire
f) repeat</p>
<p>A brace (two) of pistols was not uncommon so you could get two shots off in quick succession before having to reload.</p>
<p>Allowing for moderate advances of technology, I could see a revolver or automatic pistol with eight shots with no problem. (I once owned a revolver with a nine-shot capacity.) Semi-automatic rifles with clips up to five shots…say pretty please and you might get me to allow seven.</p>
<p>There is no justification for civilian ownership and use of: full-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons with military-capacity ammo clips, heavy caliber weapons such as .50 caliber snipers rifles (our Republican candidate for Attorney General supported this idea), grenades and grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery pieces, tanks or other armed armored vehicles, and tactical nuclear weapons. My sympathy goes out to those who wish for a 37 mm. cannon car-mounted under the left headlight, but no.</p>
<p>For those who really really really feel their lives are not complete without possession of a military-style so-called “assault” rifle like an AK-47, M-16, or various knock-offs, I might consider allowing possession of the weapon with the understanding that possession of ammunition for same is punishable by the death penalty exercised on the spot…somebody plants the ammo on you, too bad.</p>
<p>I have no problem with possession of edged weapons. For many desiring blunt weapons, I’d suggest they use their wit.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0057.html[/url]”>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0057.html</a></p>
<p>An extremely interesting article explaining my thinking as to why conservative Catholics like me, who would have never dreamed of the need to align ourselves with Evangelical groups ten years ago, have been forced into that position today by radical interest groups. The article references <em>The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice</em> by Philip Jenkins (Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University, and a Protestant) which I have not read but intend to look up today.</p>
<p>hereshoping, do you feel comfortable aligning yourself with a group that as a whole thinks you are going to hell, no matter what? that the only “redemption” is if you convert and become one of them?</p>
<p>to me, anyone that tells me i am going to hell is never anyone I could align myself with</p>
<p>On saving grace is the new movement with regards to saving our planet</p>
<p>That is something wonderful…not looking forward to the apocolypse, but valueing the Earth</p>
<p>In that regard I would gladly work side by side with anyone</p>
<p>You know, cgm, you crack me up. Do you really think these people have the POWER to send you or me to hell?! So you don’t like what they say to you? Ignore them. Besides, as a Humanist, you don’t believe in hell anyway, so why would their opinion that you’re going to a place you don’t even believe in bother you in the slightest in the first place? Rock on.</p>
<p>Imagine that God were to unmistakably appear to you and tell you that Jesus is the Savior of the world and that you are to receive Him and make known His message that the only way to escape hell and have eternal life is to believe that He died for your sins. You might respond in two different ways. You could conclude that even though you know this message is from God, you don’t like it and refuse to accept it or communicate it. Or, you could accept it as truth, receive Christ, and become the messenger that He’s commanded you to be, knowing that the eternal destiny of your fellow men depends on their response to that message. You might not like the message and wish that it were different, but if you believe that the one who has communicated it is God, you would, most likely, accept it and make it known to others, even though some would be hostile and not want to hear it. </p>
<p>Even though the Bible says that salvation is only through Jesus (Acts 4:12, John 14:6), it is not exclusive in any other sense. The message is to whoever will believe, no matter their race, sex, age, economic status, intellectual ability, religious adherence, or any other factor. The gospel is for everyone, and you can either receive it or reject it. (John 3:16)</p>
<p>I also offer a tip for those who want to stop people from sharing the gospel with you. Many, if not most, evangelicals do not believe that it is their responsibility to <em>persuade</em> people to believe the gospel, nor do they believe that they have the ability to do so. They do believe that they are commanded to make the gospel known to the world. So, if someone starts to share the gospel with you, say something like “I understand your message that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and that by believing that He died for my sins, I can receive forgiveness and eternal life through Him, but I don’t accept it as truth.” By saying this, you communicate that you understand the gospel message, so the person doesn’t feel the need to share it with you. He might still ask if you have any questions about it, but this will probably stop a large percentage of believers from communicating with you about the gospel.</p>
<p>its not th power, gosh, it is the ATTITUDE!!! If you can’t tell the difference…</p>
<p>And many of the people control federal funds to “help” others, etc, so yeah, no “power” in the spiritual sense, but “power” in the way they appear, in politics, in legislation to want to use THEIR views, somehow biblically linked, as the laws of the land.</p>
<p>Also, as one poster pointed out, the know people that say, ah, those kids are dead and they were going to hell anyway, that is damn scary</p>
<p>Also, when you value the living so little tht you care more about what happens to then after death, than you do about them when they are alive, yeah, if find that disturbing</p>
<p>HH- I don’t care if they think I am gping to their imagined hell, but that attitude carries over into many other areas</p>
<p>I would never assume anyone was going to hell…Ihave NO idea what their relationship to their God is, and just saying, OH I BELIEVE, to me, shouldn’t be enough</p>
<p>Its walking the walk, not just saying some words</p>
<p>
That’s really long. Can y’all just put that on a button for all of us who don’t care what you believe and believe it rude to question others about their beliefs? That would help a lot. Thanks.</p>
<p>That could become a profitable small business. ;)</p>
<p>Psst. TheDad. I have an assault rifle. It is called a .223 Ruger Ranch Rifle but it is classified as an assault rifle according to the store where I bought it . I never cared. It is for predator control. Not hunting. It also has a laser sight and a low light collecting scope. Guns like mine are used to kill predators at night shooting in less than optimum conditions, many times requiring a semi-automatic weapon. No other weapon would be as effective or reasonable to operate .</p>
<p>Edit: Oooh!OOh! My banana clips don’t work for crap, so if I ditch them I think I may fall within the 7 shot semi-auto exception. Yes!!!</p>
<p>A Ruger Ranch Rifle or mini-14 is not an ‘assault’ rifle. It’s a semi-automatic carbine. That’s a nonsense term applied by anti-gun liberals. :rolleyes: </p>
<p>An assault rifle must be selective-fire, in other words, capable of fully-automatic fire. Your Ruger is a high-quality compact rifle for plinking, hunting, self-defense or pest control - made in the blue state of CT. </p>
<p>We’ll have to have a thread on firearms one of these days… ;)</p>
<p>The federal law on magazine ammunition limitations died a recent, slow death. 
</p>
<p>The Ruger magazines work better. Cheap magazines are just that…</p>
<p>One quick point - the Brown Bess was one of the best infantry rifles of it’s day. The equivalent today would be the M16A3 or the M4 or an AK-74 (not the Model of 1947). The point is that it’s the conventional infantry weapon - short of being a ‘destructive device’ that Amendment #2 refers to, not a state of technology frozen in time.</p>
<p>“…a profitable business.” I’d say! ;)</p>
<p>Would you care as much if people told you you were going to heaven? I suppose that would go down more easily with you, cgm, seeing as how you are so deserving and all; <em>caring</em> so much for other people and the environment. ;)</p>
<p>If I had as much intense dislike (shall we say) for people with a certain <em>attitude</em> or belief I didn’t care for, I would hardly make it through a day in this world, cgm.</p>
<p>Who doesn’t care about the living? As a poster pointed out, Catholic Charities is the largest organization of its kind in the world. Evangelical Christian charities come in next. I’m not sure where humanist charities fall on that spectrum. (Walk the walk, for sure.)
If you’re referring to “limbo” - it was never an official doctrine of the Church, cgm.</p>
<p>“…a profitable business.” I’d say! </p>
<p>I’m glad y’all approve. I have a great place for it on my lapel right between my “Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ” button and my “I Don’t See Plaid” button.</p>
<p>“Agnostics, Pagans, Buddhists, atheists…do not have as part of their faith any interest in converting others. Therein lies the difference.”</p>
<p>You may add Jews to that list. There are sects of Judaism that recruit other Jews to join their movement within Judaism, but none that I am aware of make any attempt to recruit others, nor have they ever done so.</p>
<p>“So, if someone starts to share the gospel with you, say something like “I understand your message that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and that by believing that He died for my sins, I can receive forgiveness and eternal life through Him, but I don’t accept it as truth.””</p>
<p>Do you think that this technique will work for eight-year-olds whose state-employee teachers are sharing the Gospel with the children during school hours?</p>
<p>What would you say to a Muslim public school teacher orienting the children towards Mecca and teaching them that Mohammed is the only true prophet of God?</p>
<p>Hanna,
Obviously I was referring to a personal conversation, and a classroom setting would be much different. Students in public schools are subjected to all kinds of propaganda, and their primary recourse is to report whatever is said or done that they believe to be outside of acceptable boundaries.</p>
<p>There are “true believers” of all stripes and always have been: save the rainforest believers, save the whales believers, PETA believers, feminists, pro-abortion rights believers, workers of the world unite believers, save the environment (the forests, the streams, the air, etc.) believers, anti-nuke believers, true believer Bush haters, anti-Bible proselytizing believers (cgm), global warming believers, and on and on and on. I’m sure I could think of many more.</p>
<p>I’ve had “literature” pushed in my face by all of these groups at one time or another. Why is it people don’t get upset when these groups express an “interest in converting others” or make an “attempt to recruit others,” while at the same time they get so blown away when a Christian attempts to do the same thing.</p>
<p>It doesn’t bother me at all, and never has. I view it as an expression of free speech, which Christians have just as much a right to in this country as the groups I listed above.</p>
<p>I don’t mind at all when Christians offer me info! In fact, when Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons come to the door, I always smile and chat for a couple of minutes. I tell them that I have respect for them doing what they believe in. I also tell them that I already have a strong faith of my own. Sometimes we exchange ideas for a few minutes. I have never yet had a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon be rude or pushy. I actually enjoy talking to them! They don’t even flinch when I tell them some of my beliefs, either! Amazing! I usually try to focus on what we have in common, and it’s always been harmonious.</p>
<p>What I mind is being labeled ‘satanic’ or being told I am going to ‘hell.’ I’ve been told that a number of times by the born-agains. I know I shouldn’t let it bother me, but I admit that it does. I find it rude and offensive. Sure, that’s their right to say that to me. I guess they have the right to pass gas in public too, huh. That doesn’t mean I have to stand there and smell it.</p>
<p>Why the difference? Because the JW and the Mormons are just OFFERING their info and are not trying to cram it down my throat. They don’t seem attached to whether I accept it or not. They’re just doing their thing, joyfully it seems, and inviting me rather than coercing me. It’s a huge difference.</p>
<p>“Imagine that God were to unmistakably appear to you and tell you that Jesus is the Savior of the world and that you are to receive Him and make known His message that the only way to escape hell and have eternal life is to believe that He died for your sins.”</p>
<p>I would say, God, if you are that cruel, then no thanks - why would I want to spend eternity with YOU?</p>
<hr>
<p>“I also offer a tip for those who want to stop people from sharing the gospel with you…”</p>
<p>That’s actually a great idea - thanks! I’ll try it next time and see what happens.</p>
<hr>
<p>I was brought up Catholic and most definitely taught that Limbo existed. So now, if they have changed their doctrine, are they going to be like the born-agains and Protestants and say all non-Catholics go to ‘hell’? Hmmm…I think I like the Limbo thing better. It’s less cruel.</p>
<hr>
<p>Hey, check this out:</p>
<p><a href=“http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen1.html[/url]”>http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen1.html</a></p>
<p>I just found it and it looks interesting. Haven’t read it all yet.</p>
<hr>
<p>“do you feel comfortable aligning yourself with a group that as a whole thinks you are going to hell, no matter what? that the only “redemption” is if you convert and become one of them?”</p>
<p>That is EXACTLY what I told my Mormon brother & friend when they supported bush because he was supposedly a ‘Christian.’</p>
<hr>
<p>“to me, anyone that tells me i am going to hell is never anyone I could align myself with…On saving grace is the new movement with regards to saving our planet…That is something wonderful…not looking forward to the apocolypse, but valueing the Earth…In that regard I would gladly work side by side with anyone”</p>
<p>Yes, there is a new movement in the Christian churches that is ENVIRONMENTAL!!! What used to be an oxymoron is now happening! Isn’t it WONDERFUL! I am SO happy! Maybe there is hope that we can all coexist, if the people who used to call people like me ‘tree-hugging wackos’ are now finally starting to acknowledge that God wants us to be good stewards of this planet! I will fully support this effort and I think it’s a major move on the part of the Christians! (I hope it catches on - last I heard there was some controversy about it among Christians.)</p>
<p>AMEN!!!</p>