Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
only the type of Christian that talks like this guy.....and if he is around me.....it will be his problem.....
No it won't, because his actions are protected by law. If you do anything to prevent him from exercising his rights the problem will definitely be yours.
oh fucking bullshit.....if throws his shit at me i get to sling it back.....thats my right....you dont believe in that ...TOUGH SHIT....
oh really?.....EVERYONE on Jills side is a hypocrite?........pitch that Tent Quantum..... i think your Windbag side might be showing up....
You have already admitted that your problem is personal, and has absolutely nothing to do with Bentley. You are the one that wants to claim some dort of right to restrict his constitutional rights. That, in my view, makes you a hypocrite. If you have a prblem with it, prove me wrong.
im not trying to restrict his rights....he can say what the fuck he wants....but if he says this shit to me....he gets my shit back at him...thats MY Constitutional Right......if that makes me a Hypocrite then you dont know what a Hypocrite is....if you have a problem with that, then you prove me wrong....
Two days after being sworn in as Alabama governor, Robert Bentley apologized Wednesday for proclaiming to a Baptist church audience that only Christians were his brothers and sisters and vowed to work for people of all faiths and colors.
His comments Monday shocked and offended some believers of other faiths, but the backlash didn't seem to be a serious political wound for the retired dermatologist and Southern Baptist deacon.
In a conservative state with some of the highest levels of church attendance in the country, some Christian leaders defended the remarks and the Republican will likely get a fair chance to pursue his agenda in the coming legislative session.
"If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way," he told reporters Wednesday after meeting with leaders of other faiths in his new office.
After he took the oath of office at the Alabama Capitol on Monday, Bentley headed across the street to a service honoring Martin Luther King Jr. at King's first church, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.
During his speech, he remarked: "Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."
The former director of the Center For The Study Of The Law And The Church at Samford University, Chris Doss, said he believes Bentley stumbled briefly, partly because he is a Baptist deacon, speaking in a Baptist church.
"He was talking to his own flock," Doss said. But he added Bentley will need to be careful that he doesn't repeat that mistake.
Bentley apologized for his remarks, but not for being a Christian.
"I will never deny being a born-again Christian. I do have core beliefs and I will die with those core beliefs," Bentley said. "But I do not want to be harmful to others. And I will die if I have to to defend someone else's right to worship as they choose."
You have already admitted that your problem is personal, and has absolutely nothing to do with Bentley. You are the one that wants to claim some dort of right to restrict his constitutional rights. That, in my view, makes you a hypocrite. If you have a prblem with it, prove me wrong.
im not trying to restrict his rights....he can say what the fuck he wants....but if he says this shit to me....he gets my shit back at him...thats MY Constitutional Right......if that makes me a Hypocrite then you dont know what a Hypocrite is....if you have a problem with that, then you prove me wrong....
Yet you are the one who is saying he doesn't have a right to say what he wants because he is a governor.
oh....sure.....The Crusades were about land and power, not religion.
Read your history. Scions of the great, and not so great, houses went on Crusades so that they had a chance to have an fortune for themselves and an inheritance for their children. The alternative would have been a massive upheaval in the culture and government structure. The Crusades probably kept the feudal structure around for a few centuries longer than it would have lasted otherwise. Calling it a Holy War just gave them political cover and the blessing of the Holy Roman Empire. Plus, it got the church a lot of money.
No it won't, because his actions are protected by law. If you do anything to prevent him from exercising his rights the problem will definitely be yours.
oh fucking bullshit.....if throws his shit at me i get to sling it back.....thats my right....you dont believe in that ...TOUGH SHIT....
You arguing with him is not going to be a problem for either of you, so I do not see why you would say that it will be his problem. It seems like it will actually be yours because you are the one that will be upset, and most Christians who would actually talk to you about this are more than used to getting yelled at. Some of us even look forward to it.
You have already admitted that your problem is personal, and has absolutely nothing to do with Bentley. You are the one that wants to claim some dort of right to restrict his constitutional rights. That, in my view, makes you a hypocrite. If you have a prblem with it, prove me wrong.
im not trying to restrict his rights....he can say what the fuck he wants....but if he says this shit to me....he gets my shit back at him...thats MY Constitutional Right......if that makes me a Hypocrite then you dont know what a Hypocrite is....if you have a problem with that, then you prove me wrong....
Yet you are the one who is saying he doesn't have a right to say what he wants because he is a governor.
are you serious?....outside of those little skirmishes called the Crusades....between 1560 and 1715...there were dozens of wars and general strife....because of Religion....wars have historically been fought over religion, resources, and land......dont take my word for it Cecile....do what i did.....look it up.....those 3 were the most popular answers.....some Dictator wanting Power wasnt there.....but one of those 3 ( religion, resources, and land.).....were no doubt given as a reason he wants to go to war....
How many people do you think died in the Crusades, genius? Try approximately 3 million TOTAL. That is, 3 million people in all of the Crusades COMBINED. That's a big number, I know, but in the history of anthropogenic disasters and atrocities, it's not enough to put the combined Crusades in the top twenty, and it's even less impressive when you consider that that's spead out over, as you said, almost two hundred years. Hell, the United States alone performs more abortions a year than the annual Crusade death toll.
Dozens of wars and general strife, sure. But again, power is a lot more popular reason for that than religion, although admittedly power struggles have often liked to cloak themselves as a holy war in order to gain some sort of legitimacy.
I note that wherever you "looked it up", you didn't bother to name the source OR link it. I'm going to guess Wikipedia, that great source of serious, high-level scholarship.Try this source instead. It references actual historians. Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count
Let me break it down for you and anyone else around here who's dumb enough to believe you.
World War II - 63 million
Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution - 40 million
Genghis Khan - 40 million
British Occupation of India - 27 million
Fall of the Ming Dynasty - 25 million
Taiping Rebellion - 20 million
Joseph Stalin - 20 million
Mideast Slave Trade - 19 million
Timur Lenk (otherwise known as Tamerlane or Timur the Lame) - 17 million
(all numbers are approximate)
I could go on, but I can assure you, there's no religion listed there. The Thirty Years War, which claims an approximate death toll of 7.5 million (over the entire thirty years), is viewed as partially religious in nature, because the factions were Catholic on one side and Protestant on the other, but it was primarily a civil war, with both sides looking for power and control.
Wars in more primitive times, for all that they acquired ferocious historical reputations, didn't actually involve a lot of people by modern standards, nor did they involve weapons with enormous destructive power (again, by modern standards). A goodly portion of their death tolls were actually made up by the famines that they caused and the rampant spread of disease they managed to engender.
Cecile....nobody here was talking about how many people have died because of any type of war.....i believe the discussion was about the causes of wars and what part Religion has played in starting them....so if you wanna call someone stupid.....take a look in the FUCKING mirror.....there is someone there that would like to meet ya.....
Yes it does Cesspool...and you are the poster child of proof.How many people do you think died in the Crusades, genius? Try approximately 3 million TOTAL. That is, 3 million people in all of the Crusades COMBINED. That's a big number, I know, but in the history of anthropogenic disasters and atrocities, it's not enough to put the combined Crusades in the top twenty, and it's even less impressive when you consider that that's spead out over, as you said, almost two hundred years. Hell, the United States alone performs more abortions a year than the annual Crusade death toll.
Dozens of wars and general strife, sure. But again, power is a lot more popular reason for that than religion, although admittedly power struggles have often liked to cloak themselves as a holy war in order to gain some sort of legitimacy.
I note that wherever you "looked it up", you didn't bother to name the source OR link it. I'm going to guess Wikipedia, that great source of serious, high-level scholarship.
Let me break it down for you and anyone else around here who's dumb enough to believe you.
World War II - 63 million
Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution - 40 million
Genghis Khan - 40 million
British Occupation of India - 27 million
Fall of the Ming Dynasty - 25 million
Taiping Rebellion - 20 million
Joseph Stalin - 20 million
Mideast Slave Trade - 19 million
Timur Lenk (otherwise known as Tamerlane or Timur the Lame) - 17 million
(all numbers are approximate)
I could go on, but I can assure you, there's no religion listed there. The Thirty Years War, which claims an approximate death toll of 7.5 million (over the entire thirty years), is viewed as partially religious in nature, because the factions were Catholic on one side and Protestant on the other, but it was primarily a civil war, with both sides looking for power and control.
Wars in more primitive times, for all that they acquired ferocious historical reputations, didn't actually involve a lot of people by modern standards, nor did they involve weapons with enormous destructive power (again, by modern standards). A goodly portion of their death tolls were actually made up by the famines that they caused and the rampant spread of disease they managed to engender.
Cecile....nobody here was talking about how many people have died because of any type of war.....i believe the discussion was about the causes of wars and what part Religion has played in starting them....so if you wanna call someone stupid.....take a look in the FUCKING mirror.....there is someone there that would like to meet ya.....
What, you pasted a picture of yourself on my mirror?
Whether you look at body counts or numbers of wars, money and power have religion beaten cold, and you and your religious bigotry lose. Not surprising, since prejudice requires stupid to flourish.
Cecile.....just by this guy saying what he said.....tells me something of his Character.....im sorry....but i have run into to many "Religious" people that talked just like this guy and they were some of the biggest Hypocrites i have ever had the displeasure of meeting......sorry im just somewhat jaded by this kind of shit....
No, it tells you nothing about HIS character, but it tells ME a lot about the prejudice you've decided to project onto him (eg. "these people"). You know nothing about him except that you've decided he's [fill in the blank] sort of person, just like So-And-So, and you're all butt-hurt by a total stranger not thinking of you as his brother.
Call me when you can talk about HIM, and not about whoever hurt your feelings that you've decided he's the twin to based on one statement.
well for you to be so defencive tells me ...you must be the same way.....and im not "BUTT-HURT" by this guy not thinking of me as his Brother.....people like him and me wont get along.....so i can give a rats ass.....
''I was elected as a Republican candidate. But once I became governor ... I became the governor of all the people. I intend to live up to that. I am color blind," Bentley said in a short speech given about an hour after he took the oath of office as governor.
Then Bentley, who for years has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, gave what sounded like an altar call.
"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."
Bentley added, ''Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."
Gov.-elect Robert Bentley intends to be governor over all, but says only Christians are his 'brothers and sisters' | al.com
im not trying to restrict his rights....he can say what the fuck he wants....but if he says this shit to me....he gets my shit back at him...thats MY Constitutional Right......if that makes me a Hypocrite then you dont know what a Hypocrite is....if you have a problem with that, then you prove me wrong....
Yet you are the one who is saying he doesn't have a right to say what he wants because he is a governor.
it isn't about 'rights'. he has an absolute 'right' to be as ignorant as he wishes. what he doesn't have the 'right' to do is insert his own beliefs into his governorship in this manner.
All public officials are required to toe the PC line as defined by liberals?
I saw this coming years ago. I knew it would just be a little bit of time before the left started saying people are restricted in what they can say in CHURCH.
It's all about them wanting to persecute people for their faith and shut down the churches.
I saw this coming years ago. I knew it would just be a little bit of time before the left started saying people are restricted in what they can say in CHURCH.
It's all about them wanting to persecute people for their faith and shut down the churches.
Who is restricting what people can say in church? He has every right to say what he said....and we have every right to call him on it. He can ignore it or not....but don't go all "persecuted Christian" on us when we express our opinion.
How many people do you think died in the Crusades, genius? Try approximately 3 million TOTAL. That is, 3 million people in all of the Crusades COMBINED. That's a big number, I know, but in the history of anthropogenic disasters and atrocities, it's not enough to put the combined Crusades in the top twenty, and it's even less impressive when you consider that that's spead out over, as you said, almost two hundred years. Hell, the United States alone performs more abortions a year than the annual Crusade death toll.
Dozens of wars and general strife, sure. But again, power is a lot more popular reason for that than religion, although admittedly power struggles have often liked to cloak themselves as a holy war in order to gain some sort of legitimacy.
I note that wherever you "looked it up", you didn't bother to name the source OR link it. I'm going to guess Wikipedia, that great source of serious, high-level scholarship.
Let me break it down for you and anyone else around here who's dumb enough to believe you.
World War II - 63 million
Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution - 40 million
Genghis Khan - 40 million
British Occupation of India - 27 million
Fall of the Ming Dynasty - 25 million
Taiping Rebellion - 20 million
Joseph Stalin - 20 million
Mideast Slave Trade - 19 million
Timur Lenk (otherwise known as Tamerlane or Timur the Lame) - 17 million
(all numbers are approximate)
I could go on, but I can assure you, there's no religion listed there. The Thirty Years War, which claims an approximate death toll of 7.5 million (over the entire thirty years), is viewed as partially religious in nature, because the factions were Catholic on one side and Protestant on the other, but it was primarily a civil war, with both sides looking for power and control.
Wars in more primitive times, for all that they acquired ferocious historical reputations, didn't actually involve a lot of people by modern standards, nor did they involve weapons with enormous destructive power (again, by modern standards). A goodly portion of their death tolls were actually made up by the famines that they caused and the rampant spread of disease they managed to engender.
Cecile....nobody here was talking about how many people have died because of any type of war.....i believe the discussion was about the causes of wars and what part Religion has played in starting them....so if you wanna call someone stupid.....take a look in the FUCKING mirror.....there is someone there that would like to meet ya.....
What, you pasted a picture of yourself on my mirror?
Whether you look at body counts or numbers of wars, money and power have religion beaten cold, and you and your religious bigotry lose. Not surprising, since prejudice requires stupid to flourish.
Funny how people get "defencive" when they're attacked. Even funnier how that tells you anything about me except that I get fucking tired of people like YOU.
One more time: call me when you can talk about individuals, rather than just tarring everyone with your "people like him" broad brush, BIGOT.
No, it tells you nothing about HIS character, but it tells ME a lot about the prejudice you've decided to project onto him (eg. "these people"). You know nothing about him except that you've decided he's [fill in the blank] sort of person, just like So-And-So, and you're all butt-hurt by a total stranger not thinking of you as his brother.
Call me when you can talk about HIM, and not about whoever hurt your feelings that you've decided he's the twin to based on one statement.
well for you to be so defencive tells me ...you must be the same way.....and im not "BUTT-HURT" by this guy not thinking of me as his Brother.....people like him and me wont get along.....so i can give a rats ass.....
Well, for you to be so antagonistic tells me I'm right about you being an ignorant, knee-jerk bigot. You can claim all you like that you're not butt-hurt, but you wouldn't be in here frothing at the mouth about religious people and "hypocrites" - a topic no one has even mentioned relating to Bentley - if you weren't. So tell me again how you feel the need to rail against "people like him" in every single post because you don't give a rat's ass. I'll be happy to call you a hate-filled, bigoted liar every time you do.
Funny how people get "defencive" when they're attacked. Even funnier how that tells you anything about me except that I get fucking tired of people like YOU.
One more time: call me when you can talk about individuals, rather than just tarring everyone with your "people like him" broad brush, BIGOT.
