Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My opinion would not be worth 2 cents to you or anyone else since I am not a military man who has had professional training and education in the techniques of conducting war. However, having been one of our nations foremost generals who had such education and training, MacArthurs comment on the conduct of war seems reasonable and sane to me. If you see the situation differently, you are free to enlighten me on how you think he erred.
and true Christians would NEVER throw a hissy fit about a symbol.
And there would be NO reason for putting a cross on a building that would compel true Christians to lose sight of the great commandment of Jesus and care more about a cross than obeying it.
And I would certainly agree that people who are offended by crosses are shallow... but if they are taxpayers, they have some say as to what sort of symbology and iconography is placed upon buildings at their expense or even merely on buildings built and maintained at their expense....and I can only shake my head at them and pity them for not knowing the peace and serenity that comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus... and again.... not worry about it in the least, because, as I have said, I have a sterling silver cross around my neck... and I know that I will always be able to close my eyes and see the face of my risen Lord even if I NEVER see a cross in public again.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't MacArthur also encouraging Truman to nuke China? If you consider the probable consequences of that action, I think the problem with his thinking on this point is well-illustrated. It assumes a total war scenario that it not always in effect, and is often not desirable, from either a practical or ethical point of view.
But what does revocation of use of that symbol imply?
So is it your position that Christians should not move to protect the rights of others?
But should such people be allowed to design public policy around what offends them? What are the likely consequences of that?
who is revoking the use of a symbol? They are merely removing it from a location. If anyone wants to USE the cross, they can wear it, they can have it tattooed on their body..they can display it in their yard on their rooftop.... nothing is being REVOKED. For that matter, if you would like to display a swastika on your house, go for it.
It is my position that no one has a RIGHT to display their religious iconography in taxpayer funded locations in America.
Public policy ought to be neutral on the subject of religion. period. When zealots of any persuasion attempt to force THEIR iconography or THEIR dogma or doctrine on the rest of the public, I have a problem with it.
Tell that to Muslims praying in an airport food court and you would be called a racist
Libs get their shorts in a knot whenever Christians want to pray before a football game - libs never tell members of another Religion when and where they cannot pray
I say again: please show me one single instance where I have ever suggested that individuals ought to be prohibited from praying in public.
(even though Jesus himself was quite clear that prayer is best conducted alone and in private Matt 6:6)
Nice dodge job. I do not see Christians saying people cannot express thier Religion in public - only libs saying Christains cannot expres theirs in public
I say again...show me one quote of mine where I ever say that Christians should not be allowed to pray in public.
I'll wait.
and you ought to go read Matthew 6:6.... it is on point here.
so...you admit that I have never said anything that even vaguely resembles anything like what you say I said?
I LOVE it when Christians pray. I pray at my desk often throughout the day... and if you were to open the door and enter my office, you would not even know I was praying....
You are the one who is running away from your own cut and paste jobs...
are you ever gonna just admit that your posting of the Iraq casualty website was a big mistake and that it does not show any decrease in American casualties and certainly not a 60% decrease as you suggested?
Libs are the only ones I see trying to remove God from the public view
Libs are the only ones I see trying to prevent people from openly expressing their Christian views
I did post several examples backing up the decrease in US deaths - much to your dismay and sorrow
Why does God need to be in public view. Is he not in your heart?
I have never EVER suggested that people should not be free to openly express their christian faith....
and you posted this link that disproves your case. why did you do that?
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Libs always seem to be offended by having Christians openly expressing their Religion in public
BTW, sorry to hear your party has been cancelled
When have I ever said I was offended by any such thing?
when will YOU address the fact that YOU posted that website, not me?
and when are you ever gonna go fight in the war in Iraq instead of hiding behind your computer and waving pompoms like the chickenshit yellow bellied fighting keyboardist that you are?
Libs and the ACLU have an ongoing war against Christains and anytime they express their Religion in public - but have no problem with other Religions doing the same in public
I see you are so upset your death watch party is on hold
What's wrong? You can't get a refund on the band and food/drink order?
I have asked you to show me one quote of MINE where I have ever expressed any problems with Christians expressing their religion in public.
Please find one.
and why are you so afraid to admit that you fucked up?
It would be one thing if I were the one to post http://icasualties.org/oif/
and you were to say that it was some liberal site that did not have good numbers...but is was YOU who posted it and now you cannot even admit that it disproves your case!
