QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Shay]

Kev- that is, honestly, pretty awful.

I know where the movie quote came from, and honestly it's gross.

[Dan]

Friend Roberts,

I surely could have lived without coming to this site and seeing the photograph of scantily dressed women! I question thy motives there.

And as for the earlier mention of "Thomas putting his finger in the nail prints of Christ".

No where in the Bible do we read that he did. He said he would not believe unless he did, but when Jesus appeared to him and told him to stick his finger in the holes and his hand in his blessed side, the Word never said that Thomas did, rather he humbly cried, "My Lord and My God". Sometimes we make the Bible to say what it specifically doesn't.

Thy Friend,
Dan

[kevin roberts]

i don't watch movies, shay, so if there was ever a movie with that line i would never see it. if it reminds you of something ugly, i apologize.

dan, there is no more skin in that photograph than you or i will see in a public university campus at class change. welcome to western civilization.

folks, i hang out among people who do not share my faith and call me satanic, deluded, a follower of the devil, a fool, a moron, accuse me of lying, tell me that my beliefs need to be legally restricted, that i should be prevented from practising or asserting my beliefs in public places, and who regular curse and profane my god with words, pictures, and innuendo, including explicit pornographic images. within that environment, i witness for christ, christianity, and the quaker revelation of both. as a result, i tend to have a higher tolerance for being offended than some people, which is what i need to maintain in order to sit down and eat with the sinners and publicans.

i was going to take that photograph down, but it occurred to me that an occasional reminder that we all live in vanity fair might be appropriate. this image is of people who need to hear of christ, and if their existence and lifestyle is offensive, then we aren't being obedient to god in his commands to meet people where they are.

think about it please. i'll be happy to take the photograph down, but if we can't explicitly acknowledge the real people we live next to, then we have a problem and it's not in the image.

[Shay]

[Anthony]

[Anthony]

Need more be said about culling and hunting?

This terrible aerial gunning plan could kill hundreds of wolves in the area -- all to help state officials artificially boost elk populations so that hunters can more easily kill them.

http://www.myspace.com/wolflament/blog/541372327

[james]

This is off-topic, I know, but responds to the picture Kevin posted.

I didn't care for the picture, mainly because of its silly, posed quality, with nothing of genuine human sexuality in it. Artificiality, a sign of bad art, is the problem for me.

But why is it that everyone commenting about this quite harmless picture had to say something bad about it, including the person who posted it? Why does sexuality get our goat up, raise the volume and moral touchiness of discourse more than almost any topic--often substantially moreso than violence? Why, for instance, do the police announce when a past sexual offender who has been released moves into a neighborhood, but not a past murderer? And why do most people not even find that discrepancy odd?

If folks are interested in this question I suppose it might belong in a new topic.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[Shay]

[james]

[Anthony]

I have posted on hunting for sport in the Quaker Concern for Animal link

[kevin roberts]

[james]

[Dan]

I must toss this one in as my great great grandparents founded the first Friends Meeging in South Dakota and I have recently read that the South Dakota state legislature is introducing a law that would require all citzens in the state to purchase a firearm.


It can be found here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?Bill=1237
So, what think thee of that?

Thy Friend,
Dan

[james]

[Shay]

Short URL: http://con.st/10015479
South Dakota Politicians Propose Mandatory Gun Ownership Law
By Chris Morran on February 1, 2011 2:15 PM 0 views

(quaziefoto)

A handful of South Dakota lawmakers have introduced a bill that would require every one of the state's citizens over the age of 21 to own a firearm. But the legislation isn't really intended to force South Dakota residents to take up arms. Instead, it's meant to highlight the questions some have regarding the constitutionality of the mandatory coverage portion of the health care bill.

"Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not." Explained State Rep. Hal Wick, one of the bill's five sponsors. "But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance."

From the bill:

“
[E]ach citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of twenty-one years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense...

[E]ach citizen residing in the state of South Dakota shall comply with the provisions of this Act within six months of attaining the age of twenty-one years.
”

As reported earlier, a District Court judge in Florida deemed void the entirety of last year's health care reform legislation after ruling that the mandatory coverage section of the law was both unconstitutional and inseparable from the rest of the bill.

What is your opinion of the analogy comparing mandatory gun ownership to mandatory insurance coverage?

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Individual Mandate To Require Gun Ownership [HuffPo]

-http://consumerist.com/2011/02/south-dakota-politicians-propose-mandatory-gun-ownership-law.html