Your call. As you can see from my posts, I'm not "kissing up" with him, but I am trying to be civil. That's all I ask. I can't make you. It's a shame...

Here's a new post: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-1641-1.html#9530

For those of you who think that Muslims are peaceable, law abiding people, this is the result when they have superior numbers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJBW49afzg

You really need to do a little more research on this subject then. Within 20 years, at present birth/immigration rates, people of the Islamic faith will be the majority in America. One only has to research Dearborn, MI to know that Islam already has given Sharia a large toe hold in America. Christians have been arrested for proselytizing Muslims on public walkways in Dearborn.

Let's not also forget the honor k*****gs in our recent past. That is also Sharia. Islam is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America. It is as much a government as it is a religion. It cannot tolerate the presence of dissent. What do you think will happen in America within 20 years time? All you have to do is look to eastern Europe to see the sectarian violence that is caused by Islam.

As for our government...the Muslim in Chief has been filling many of his cabinet seats with Muslims as well as many other important roles in his administration. He bows before the king of Saudi Arabia as though he were a subject. Let us not also forget that as a child he attended a Indonesian Public School that also taught Islam. On the surface, he may profess Christianity. Underneath his actions declare him a Muslim.

No, the Islamization of America is already well underway. How's that for a fundamental t***sformation?!

Ironically, it was the Democratic party that was against B****s v****g during the civil rights era. Strange how liberals now claim ownership of it...

That may be true, but if you cannot be civil and stop, then why should he? All it takes is a little effort from both sides.

Well, to start off, there IS hope for you. At least you accept the possibility that there is a God. I was sure I had you pegged an atheist. Glad to be wrong.

Second, religion is all about faith. I couldn't make the claims I do if I didn't have faith. Of course it is possible that I could be wrong. However, I have faith that I'm not wrong. Neither of us can conclusively prove this one way or another until the final accounting.

"I live by what is obvious to me," That's the first problem. It is based on perception. As everyone knows, perception is flawed. "the here and now ," Here and now is constant change. Not much to grasp onto here. "the real world ," What is the real world? Science struggles to define it. So far they have failed to do so because so much of it is based on assumptions. Those assumptions are based on observations (perception again). "not an ancient text of questionable origin." Herein lies the essence of your dilemma...faith. It takes faith to believe in the Bible, faith that it's divinely inspired, faith that God is who He says He is, faith that God made Himself a man so that He could bear the weight of the sins of the world, to die in place of us for our rightful judgement, that He then was resurrected as a sign (first fruit) that the Judgement had been paid and His sacrifice deemed worthy, faith that belief in his sacrifice for us, and our need for Him is the only path to restoring our relationship with God. Without that faith, you will never understand those of us who have such faith.

If my faith can be construed as arrogance, then so be it. However, you are wrong about one thing. I never compel anyone to believe or do anything. In fact, I cannot. No one can. For you to come to know Yeshua (Jesus), it must be a sincere choice. How can you be sincere if you are coerced? You cannot.

As for your final question, again you misunderstand (at the very least) the dynamics of the situation. First a little history lesson.

Our forefathers (at least initially) came to this country for religious freedom. That was certainly the case for the passengers of the Mayflower. Obviously, over time, others came with different ideas. All were seeking the same thing, freedom and opportunity. However, as demographics were for the day, the majority of people were predominantly Christian. Whether they were merely acculturated Christians or true believers is a matter of academic question. When our forefathers established this country with its present Constitution, they did so acknowledging God from the beginning. They established this as a Christian nation. However, having the example of the oppression of the Roman Catholic Church, they wisely made it so that no church could prevail over another through the government by forbidding the establishment of a national religion. Nevertheless, this was established as a Christian nation. The first prayers of Congress and the President were to consecrate this nation to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is a matter of historical record.
That said, back to your question. It depends on what you mean by "subjected to your religious beliefs". If by subjected you mean me or any other Christian sharing our beliefs with you...?

My answer to that is very simple. I have a first amendment right to practice my religion, and a first amendment right to say (or print) what I will, especially if controversial. This is also keeping in line one of the commandments Yeshua gave His disciples: "Go forth and make disciples of men (and women), and to spread the Good new of salvation through Him. Once again, this is a gift freely given. It cannot be bought, sold, traded or taken by force. One only has to ask for it." One cannot do that if one doesn't have the freedom to do so. Many Christians have died fulfilling this task.

If you meant using the law to force people to live by Christian standards...?

Then I have to agree with you there. No law should be of a purely religious nature. You cannot force people to change. They have to want to do so willingly.

It is this fact that has me at odds with you liberals. No matter how nobly intended,you seek to force people to do what you want "for the greater good".

But whose greater good? Taking tax money intended for the purpose of running the government and giving it to entitlement programs is misappropriation at best; theft at worst. You are forcibly telling everyone they have to pay so that others can have. The same is true of the EPA and other such regulatory bodies. You attempt to use law to force people to change their behavior. Nothing good ever comes through the use of force.

The same is true of Obama Care, and gun regulation. In fact, gun regulation is exactly why the second amendment was written in the first place. It was to prevent the government from taking power from the people. Sadly, it would appear that the people will voluntarily disarm themselves for the promise of food and a false sense of security.

Now, back to your holy grail, Gay Marriage. My personal objections ARE religious. Not because I don't want gay people to be happy. Not that I oppose them having civil unions. I oppose it because what they want is a redefining of millennia old terms ans traditions. The ramifications of such redefining is that Pastors, Priests, and Ministers would be FORCED to host or perform marriages to gay couples even though it goes against our religious beliefs. That is a violation of their first amendment rights! That I cannot abide! Settle for civil unions with the same legal protections in the law, and leave marriage alone.

You complain about the religious coercing the secular. Can't you see your hypocrisy when you, the secular, coerce the religious? You can't cry foul when you do the same thing you accuse us of doing.

Look. My goal here is not to get into a name calling match with people. When it comes to politics, emotions tend to run hot. Can we all please tone the name calling and rhetoric down a few notches? Let's get back on point which is to debate politics. Poke holes in a person's statement, their ideology, and their perceptions, but let's leave the personal attacks out of the conversation. Hmm?

And we all know how much he likes to be politically correct. Now lets try to get him to be technically correct, and we can call it a day!

Will wait and see how this turns out.

LOL! I imagine that it will strike a LOT of nerves! As for not being liked...been there done that. I can handle it.

Like you say..tough...get used to it.

I support the Biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman as shown in the second chapter of the book of Genesis. God made man a woman to be his help mate. In Genesis 3, it refers to her as his wife. That is the only definition of marriage I will ever accept.

Your problem isn't with me. It's with God. You're just too arrogant to realize that simple t***h. Your anger with me is really directed at Him, but you can't see Him, so you direct it at me instead. I can take it.

The fact that I accept the existence of God is why you and I will never agree. What you call "rational" and "reasonable" are vain concepts if you deny God. I can't give you what you call rational or reasonable because it requires me to give in to a lie...that there is no God.

I have made my choice, and I take my stand with God. I can only pray that God open up your eyes to the t***h before it's too late for you. I would rather see you reconciled with God than suffer the just fate you have created for yourself. That, however, is a matter between you and Him.

Apology accepted.

I'm afraid that any two year old has more common sense than you do. After all, they know that they have a mommy and daddy...unless they are adopted, and then it's anyone's guess what they know. But like I said...the majority of two year olds know.

You see, that's the difference between you and me. I don't need to resort to name calling to make a point. I figure the your state of being is so obvious that it doesn't require a label (or labels) to be applied to you. But go right on and label people. That's what you liberals do...divide and conquer.

If you can't win an argument, then call names, lie, c***t, threaten, or commit violence (might makes right after all...the ends justify the means, am I right?). That is all you liberals can do...that and change the meaning of words. After all, you can't lose an argument if no one knows what you are talking about.

And that is why the homosexual agenda is wrong. I have no problem with civil unions, but I do not support a change in the traditional definition of marriage to accommodate a minority view.