Bible Party of the USA

I really could care less that he hates gays because some book tells him it's wrong, and I could care less if he shouts it from the highest mountian. BUT the second it goes to far and infringes on that individuals freedom and happiness he is wrong, I don't care what "god" says, and he doesn't have the right to hide behind the bible, as a shield from the law for doing so. People need to be held accountable for their actions.



If I want to be original, I'll paint a picture. So, conservatives don't have free thought? No wonder they're so tight assed.

"People need to be held accountable for their actions."

I comment with one word while using only the literal definition - Amen.

If christians can hide behind the Bible, can muslims do the same with the Q'uran? How can anyone after this believe that christian freedom of religion is being controlled, the laws in this country are made to fit their beliefs!

I don't think American christians nor American muslims can. I agree, America's first amendment to the Constitution established freedom of religion.

This amendment and the following nine constitute America's "Bill of Rights". (just some history)

This is what I just wrote to President Bush,

********************
I ask you to veto both ENDA and the Hate Crimes bill should they get to your desk. I do not believe that a church should be forced by the federal government to support the homosexual lifestyle, or that one group of individuals (homosexuals) should have special privileges under law.

These bills are a direct attack on the most basic institutions that provide the foundation of our society. These attacks are meant to accomplish what individual lawsuits could not, to destroy the basic values and operation of the Boy Scouts, VFW, American Legion, and church. If these institutions fall victim to this tactic, our country will be left defensless in the war against darkness.

Please hold the line for us and veto these bills if they come to your desk.
***********************
This is a request that he use the powers of the Presidency to stop the establishment of a class of US citizens who have superior rights to all others and prevent the destruction of basic institutions of our society.

I did not call you a "fag." Your word, not mine. This is what I said:

"You are either homosexual or bi-sexual (homosexual), have someone in your immediate circle who is, or have bought the homosexual train of thought. I really pity you and will pray for you. I don't want my children or grand-children or their children to be corrupted by homosexuals or any other body of man that chooses to do what is right in their own minds and structures society to promote their agenda. You are the product of that process. You rail against people who are not products of that process and who want to engage in the political process to reverse the damage caused to societal mechanism that make society deviate from what is acceptable according to God's Word."

What does "oh snap" mean? Must be a new fangled term.

Wasn't Jesus himself for separation of Church and state?

kinda reminds me of "Rock Against Drugs"

You mean, you want to be able to intimidate, and hurt people you don't like without reprecussion, too bad, welcome to living in a society that is full of different people, with different views, and different backgrounds. You want the right to be superior to all others because you think yours is the right way of thinking...it's not. Every generation of my family hasn't gone to war to protect your right to make everyone think like you, freedom doesn't mean freedom for you and you church, it means freedom for ALL Americans.

It is good you took a vacation, but it should have been a longer one. You still seem a bit tightly wound. Next time spring for the extra room for your "kid." That will allow you to have quality time with your wife and unwind.

By the by, I don't hate anyone. I do recognize when someone hates me and am willing to defend myself and those I love.

Back to the term "fag." Why would you use the term "fag" if you didn't have a bit of hatred for your fellow man/woman who is homosexual? Or is it just that you have a bit of homosexual tendency or homophobia? I prefer to use the term homosexual because it is descriptive and does not promote the homosexual agenda by hiding what they do. The term "fag" does, as does the term "gay."

I really hate to say this, but you are, by your own admission, ignorant. "Religion" or what you view as religion has a significant impact on your life now. That is why you are so hostile toward people who believe that you wish to close their mouths. I hope you aren't passing that on to your "kid." Maybe by the time your "kid" is old enough for school you will change your idea of what is right and what is wrong and how to address it. I hope so for your "kid's" sake. People who care about their "kids" have a tendency to change their ideas of right and wrong when their "kids" begin to feel the impact of other peoples' behavior. Of couse, if your "kid" is just an accessory to your marriage as many are nowadays, then you probably won't feel a need to change.

Rebuking someone for poor behavior is not a form of hatred. It shows you care about them and the society around them upon which their behavior has an impact. The act of maintaining the established standards of a society is not a form of hatred. If it were, then there would be no laws on the books. If there is no standard of behavior, there is no law. If there is no law, no one is safe.

Telling someone who is exhibiting self-destructive behavior that they are exhibiting self-destructive behavior and should stop, is not a form of hatred. Someone exhibiting self-destructive behavior usually has a healthy dose of self-hatred. Since they hate themselves, they have a hard time accepting the fact their behavior is destructive. No man is an island. What each member of society does, affects all other members of that society. If someone hurts themselves they are seldom just hurting themselves.

Homosexuals do not, can not, procreate. They recruit. Your kid may be one of their recruits if they are successful in their plans to reshape society. Take a look at the curriculum in your kid's school, then look at the curriculum in CA. CA is either teaching the homosexual lifestyle now, has passed a law mandating it, or is about to. "They" say that once something is taught in CA it moves through our educational system and is eventually taught in all states. If this is true and if you succeed in protecting your kid, then it may be that one of your grand-kids, will become a recruit. Oh come on grand-dad, stop being so old fashioned. If you think the idea this is a planned effort is far fetched, think again. Homosexual organizations are very open about their agenda.

The Bible is God's Word. You can choose to believe that or not. Your belief or unbelief doesn't make any difference to me as long as you do not restrict my right to free speech or the rights of my family and friends. If you (or those like you) do, as evidenced by my posts, I will defend myself and those I love. I am proficient at this defense, having practiced it for many years. Don't worry, I usually use the pen since it is mightier than the sword.

The Bible is also a history book that provides 6,000 years of examples of good behavior and bad. It provides examples of behavior that will lead to eternal life or death. To paraphrase, "He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it."

I am doing my best to honor God. I am also doing what I can to defend society as I know it. I spent 24 years in active military service defending this country and our society. I spent more than 14 of those years overseas in the countries you probably idolize for their great ways of life. The reality in those countries is more nity grity than you can see on short travel trips or by watching PBS. Based on what you have posted, you would really not like to live in that kind of society, I'm talking the UK, GE, Itlay, Netherlands, Japan, Korea, Morroco, etc... Yes, someone like you would call me a "Cold Warrior." However, despite the insult that is intended, I accept that appellation with honor, since you and I are not speaking or reading russian or chinese.

Who was keeping the home fires burning during that period? It seems, not many people cared to, if your attitude and belief system are the result of their effort.

Christians are called to be salt and light. Salt poured on a wound makes it hurt and burn. It also helps disinfect. Light illuminates the dark corners and makes what happens there visible to all. Light also disinfects. Bacteria has a hard time living in light and salt. Our society has so many wounds that you don't recognize them as wounds. You think they are the normal state of affairs. The wounds are festering and need to be debrided, disinfected, and the patient needs a healthy dose of a tier three anti-biotic.

I am not hiding behind anything, pup. I'm right out there in front where I can take your spears. With God's grace, I am attempting to keep the full armor of God on so I can continue fighting for your rights and mine.

Negative. I am not superior to anyone. Neither is anyone superior to me. All are sinners, including me. The only person without sin is Christ Jesus.

I assume you meant has gone to war. So, are you resting on your family's contributions or are you in the trenches also? If you are in the trenches, then you will soon find there are no athiests in foxholes. If not, then you are talking about something about which you know nothing. Your parents' accomplishments and experiences are not your own.

Well said. He doesn't understand how he got the mind set he has.

Sounds like a philosophy professor. Sounds like something that would be swallowed by a teen or twenty something in a class in which they want a good grade.

What is a man? What is a woman? I know that is a question for another thread, but you speak as though man and woman existed in and of themselves.

I think, therefore I am? In your mind is that equivalent to the I AM?

Take care? What is meant by take care? Who decides what is right and what is wrong? What is care and what is neglect? Man? Woman? If man or woman, then anyone can decide that anyone else is wrong. If man or woman, then there is no basis for law.

If you say law evloved, then why did it evolve as it has? What did it evolve from? There had to be a primal state. Why not allow for murder? Why not allow for theft? Why not allow for any of the other actions and activities that God's Word condemns? Law didn't evolve any more than man and woman did.

Maybe you should reread that sentence, since you didn't seem to understand it in it's full context. And yes, I have my own experiances in war, don't think you are special.

Since you are just another religious zealot, there's really no point in continuing this discusion. Don't let those that are different from you get you too far down.

Roger that, people need to be accountable for their actions. That's the point. Good for you, you got it.

In terms of the "tight assed" statement, I'm not going to take the bait.

Since you don't have a clue about me other than your assumptions, don't believe for a second you know where I get my way of thinking. I know you'd like to think that your way of thinking is what molds everyone, but it isn't.

Your words and the attitude they convey provide plenty of clues. You are not as obtuse as you believe.

Please provide the chapter and verse that indicates that idea.

Negative. I want to remain free to teach my children and grandchildren and with God's grace, their children God's Word. I want other members of the Body of Christ to have the same freedom. I want to have the freedom to spread the Gospel.

What is happening here isn't agression from me or people who believe as I do, it is agression from people who want to restrict God's Word. In the Bible, this is called the spirit of the anti-Christ. This is why these people wish to silence people who quote the Bible.

Obviously, you were educated in an environment that did not believe the phrase, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Otherwise, you wouldn't be so adamant about restricting my freedom to speak.

Labels are attempts to discredit without argument.

Go ahead, "feint and slash and run away and live to fight another day." Read much Harry Harrison?

Here is the primary text of ENDA:

H.R.2015
Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--

(1) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

(2) to provide meaningful and effective remedies for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; and

(3) to invoke congressional powers, including the powers to enforce the 14th amendment to the Constitution, and to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- In this Act:

(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(2) COVERED ENTITY- The term `covered entity' means an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee.

(3) EMPLOYEE-

(A) IN GENERAL- the term `employee' means--

(i) an employee as defined in section 701(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(f);

(ii) a Presidential appointee or State employee to which section 302(a)(1) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a)(1) applies;

(iii) a covered employee, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301) or section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code; or

(iv) an employee or applicant to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a)) applies.

(B) EXCEPTION- The provisions of this Act that apply to an employee or individual shall not apply to a volunteer who receives no compensation.

(4) EMPLOYER- The term `employer' means--

(A) a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce (as defined in section (701)(h) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(h)) who has 15 or more employees (as defined in subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B) of paragraph (3)) for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but does not include a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) that is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(B) an employing authority to which section 302(a)(1) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 applies;

(C) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 or section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code, or; and

(D) an entity to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies.

(5) EMPLOYMENT AGENCY- The term `employment agency' has the meaning given the term in section 701(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(c))

(6) GENDER IDENTITY- The term `gender identity' means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.

(7) LABOR ORGANIZATION- The term `labor organization' has the meaning given the term in section 701(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(d)).

(8) PERSON- The term `person' has the meaning given the term in section 701(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(a)).

(9) SEXUAL ORIENTATION- The term `sexual orientation' means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

(10) STATE- The term `State' has the meaning given the term in section 701(i) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(i)).

(b) Application of Definitions- For purposes of this section, a reference in section 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--

(1) to an employee or an employer shall be considered to refer to an employee (as defined in paragraph (3)) or an employer (as defined in paragraph (4)), respectively, except as provided in paragraph (2) below; and

(2) to an employer in subsection (f) of that section shall be considered to refer to an employer (as defined in paragraph (4)(A)).

SEC. 4. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.

(a) Employer Practices- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

(b) Employment Agency Practices- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the individual or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the individual.

(c) Labor Organization Practices- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization--

(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the individual;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment, or would limit such employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee or as an applicant for employment because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or

(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.

(d) Training Programs- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the individual in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.

(e) Association- An unlawful employment practice described in any of subsections (a) through (d) shall be considered to include an action described in that subsection, taken against an individual based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated.

(f) No Preferential Treatment or Quotas- Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to require or permit--

(1) any covered entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area; or

(2) the adoption or implementation by a covered entity of a quota on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

(g) Disparate Impact- Only disparate treatment claims may be brought under this Act.

SEC. 5. RETALIATION PROHIBITED.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to discriminate against an individual because such individual (1) opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this Act; (2) opposed any practice that the individual reasonably believed is an unlawful employment practice under this Act; or (3) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act.

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.

(b) Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.

(c) Conformity to Religious Tenets- Under this Act, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares significant. Under this Act, such a declaration by a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society stating which of its religious tenets are significant shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review. Any such declaration made for purposes of this Act shall be admissible only for proceedings under this Act.

SEC. 7. NONAPPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES; VETERANS' PREFERENCES.

(a) Armed Forces-

(1) EMPLOYMENT- In this Act, the term `employment' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

(2) ARMED FORCES- In paragraph (1) the term `Armed Forces' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

(b) Veterans' Preferences- This title does not repeal or modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating a special right or preference concerning employment for a veteran.

SEC. 12. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action or administrative proceeding for a violation of this Act, an entity described in section 10(a) (other than paragraph (4) of such section), in the discretion of the entity, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee (including expert fees) as part of the costs. The Commission and the United States shall be liable for the costs to the same extent as a private person.