Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged god

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Janeth Cano

Why be against same sex marriage? - 37 views

front.moveon.org

politics protest

shared by Janeth Cano on 05 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Janeth Cano on 05 Dec 11
     
    A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!
  • ...30 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 11
     
    This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.
  • awest520 on 05 Dec 11
     
    "marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?
  • Katelynn Hunter on 06 Dec 11
     
    If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.
  • anonymous on 06 Dec 11
     
    I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.
  • Bryan Pregon on 06 Dec 11
     
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo
  • Brice Johnson on 07 Dec 11
     
    I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.
  • robert jungferman on 07 Dec 11
     
    casue it sthe same sex it shold not be
  • broxton anderson on 07 Dec 11
     
    this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.
  • Tuan Chau on 07 Dec 11
     
    I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..
  • broxton anderson on 07 Dec 11
     
    they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.
  • Dakota Classon on 07 Dec 11
     
    I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?
  • Sierra Risner on 07 Dec 11
     
    I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.
  • Alexis Daniels on 07 Dec 11
     
    Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.
  • Derek Large on 07 Dec 11
     
    I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.
  • awest520 on 08 Dec 11
     
    "broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?
  • Jay Cook on 09 Dec 11
     
    From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk
  • broxton anderson on 12 Dec 11
     
    yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.
  • Katelynn Hunter on 20 Dec 11
     
    for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought
  • xhotxsoccerbabe on 09 Mar 12
     
    Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.
  • xhotxsoccerbabe on 09 Mar 12
     
    Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?
  • Brittany Bourlier on 09 Mar 12
     
    I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.
  • Captain Crunk on 15 Mar 12
     
    It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.
  • kevindickey on 16 Mar 12
     
    From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...
  • Sean Barrett on 16 Mar 12
     
    Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.
  • kevindickey on 16 Mar 12
     
    If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....
  • Brittany Bourlier on 16 Mar 12
     
    Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?
  • Jake Radford on 16 Mar 12
     
    I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.
  • Riley Barton on 16 Mar 12
     
    I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights
  • katilyn olinde on 20 Mar 12
     
    i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights
  • kevindickey on 20 Mar 12
     
    Thinning the gene pool is a bad thing. Genes that don't get passed are lost, and it could have devastating effects. Also I never said they don't contribute through adopting. I said that in the eyes of evolution ANYONE who fails to pass on genes is nonexistent.
  • Riley Barton on 20 Mar 12
     
    I believe Brittany said the human population, not pointing out simply the gene pool. The human population rate needs to slow down. It's increasing at a ridiculous rate and with adoptions instead of births it will decrease slightly. However, more people need to understand that everyone has a right as an individual and if a man-man or woman-woman couple wants to get married or adopt children or have their own, I say let them.
Bryan Pregon

Atheists continue battle against World Trade Center cross at memorial - 2 views

religion.blogs.cnn.com/...trade-center-cross-at-memorial

Government liberties religion 9.11

shared by Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Jazmine Orellana on 11 Sep 12
     
    I think having a cross at the museum is acceptable. The meaning of a cross varies from person to person. Yes many victims might not have been Christians but people affected from 9/11 should also have the right to display any religious symbol here as well.
  • Dennis Owens on 11 Sep 12
     
    it is a nation under god so they shouldnt have a problem with the cross "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, (one Nation under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
  • Holly Jensen on 12 Sep 12
     
    If it's okay to put up a cross then it should be okay to put up any symbol of any religion. As long as they do that then I think it's okay.
  • Alex Snipes on 12 Sep 12
     
    I agree with you Jazmine and Dennis, this is a nation under God. We live in a free country that was started by Christians and to this day, they should be honored. With the honor of those who died in 9/11, should be remembered with a cross and it should not be taken down because of those who don't believe in God. Even if someone doesn't believe, it doesn't mean the ones who do have to cater to them by taking the cross down. If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it, because those who it does effect, want it there and they should be respected as well
  • Jaacob Tatta on 12 Sep 12
     
    i agree people have the right to believe in whatever they want so if that means putting up a cross at ground zero then that's fine. It also says in the pledge that we are a nation under god, and i believe that there many more christian people in the United States than Atheists so i believe that it was the right thing to do.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 12 Sep 12
     
    I"m Atheist and I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a cross put up. It's a sign of 9/11 not a sign promoting God. It's not like people are going there to worship God they are going there to remember those who died in 9/11.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Sep 12
     
    The article points out that there are other publicly funded museums have religious art work in them because religious artwork has both cultural and artistic value. However, in my opinion using the argument that we are a country under god is a subjective and highly personal belief. If there is an atheist that lives in Happyland, Connecticut and they don't believe in god how can they, in their view, live in a nation under god. The First Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing and/or favoring one religion over another or religion altogether over no religion at all. I don't feel that the cross alone violates this part of the First Amendment if placed in a museum because I don't see it as the government promoting or favoring a religion that uses a cross as their religious symbol. The way I see it the government is allowing an artifact from a disaster the affected the entire population and has become a cultural and possibly artistic representation of the 9/11 attacks in to the museum. In my view it would be different if they added something about Christianity or religion to the display along with the cross, but if they were to just put an information card that says, "The 'World Trade Center Cross' was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center," or something similar then it wouldn't cross the line.
  • Hope Philbrick on 13 Sep 12
     
    I really like that fact that the cross was found in the rubble. Its not like some artist decided to make it from the rubble. I'm sure if there was a different symbol of any religion found it would have been put on display just like the cross was.
  • Jake Warnke on 13 Sep 12
     
    I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Sep 12
     
    I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.
Bryan Pregon

'Under God' part of Pledge of Allegiance under review in Massachusetts - CNN.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

Government allegiance god massachusetts cnn Politics

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Sep 13
     
    "'Under God' part of Pledge of Allegiance under review in Massachusetts"
  • ...6 more comments...
  • ladasia on 04 Sep 13
     
    Well then, If it started that way, why would we change it? That's like changing McDonald's from fast food to a fancy italian resturant
  • Bryan Pregon on 06 Sep 13
     
    It is interesting that the pledge has been changed before... the "under God" part wasnt added until the 1950's http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
  • Sara Borgaila on 06 Sep 13
     
    I don't think its discrimination. Because it's saying that God doesn't love gay people but that's quite opposite. Well that's what I believe anyway. I think we should leave the pledge the way it is because of tradition.
  • Paul Gerjevic on 06 Sep 13
     
    america isn't all forced religion country so i can see why under god could upset people but it isn't that big of a deal
  • Victoria Kirk on 06 Sep 13
     
    It shouldn't matter that is not "forcing a religion" on to someone. Kids don't really think about the meaning of words that they repeat everyday.
  • sheagorman on 06 Sep 13
     
    i think its unnecessary to change it because its a free counrty you dont even have to say the pledge, also it doesnt say a certain god, just gid so that can mean any god you believe in
  • sarah smith on 06 Sep 13
     
    Why?!! Neext thing you know they will wanna take the In God we trust off the money!!
  • ladasia on 06 Sep 13
     
    They have actually spoken on that in the past
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
Holly Jensen

Preacher Phil Snider gives gay rights speach - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

Government Politics News gay rights

shared by Holly Jensen on 21 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Holly Jensen on 21 Oct 12
     
    This is totally great. I think it made a great comparison between racism and being against gay marriage. I highly recommend watching this.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Kenna McKeighan on 22 Oct 12
     
    I watched this and I really liked it. I give him credit for being a preacher and going against all other preachers by speaking on behalf of gay marriage.
  • Holly Jensen on 23 Oct 12
     
    It just goes to show that you can't let one person represent an entire religion.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    Religion though, should not influence the policies of government upon gay marriage. Just a side note, I laugh at images of people going to his protest, and raising a sign that says, "god hates signs," or "He's gay"
  • Holly Jensen on 26 Oct 12
     
    Exactly. Our country isn't ruled by religion its ruled by the people and their choices.
  • Kenna McKeighan on 26 Oct 12
     
    I agree also, religion should stay out of politics, the only reason people think being homosexual is wrong is because it says so in the bible. Gay couples who get married aren't hurting anyone or anything, I really think that this even being an issue is absurd.
  • Payton Dawdy on 31 Oct 12
     
    I agree that one person can not represent an entire religion. One can represent their own easy because it is their personal belief on said subject. I give him props for being a willing person to speaking his views on gay marriage. The bible does not exactly say that it is not okay to be homosexual. It says its not okay to lay with someone of the same sex if I remember right. So I feel the physical part is viewed as not ok, wile the mental area should be taken in mind as well.
  • Alexis Theos on 31 Oct 12
     
    Every time someone "interprets" the bible it's like they are trying to "play God". They all try to say this is what God thinks and this is what He believes is wrong. I mean we should all be able to interpret it our own way and not try to make others believe in our interpretation, especially if it portrays God as "against" his own creations.
  • Holly Jensen on 01 Nov 12
     
    Religion is based off of your own personal faith and beliefs and with so many different versions and beliefs you can't let one person say what it means and stereotype that religion. You also have to consider the fact that things change with time, people evolve and so do thoughts. Like Snider showed in the video, we once thought that racism was right and accepting other nationalities was against their religion.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 02 Nov 12
     
    As I have said before, religion should have no influence when it comes to government policy. As for the bible, I could point out many things wrong with the bible, and the idea that Christianity not supporting gay relationships. I will not, simply out of the urge as to not ruin peoples views on religion. What I will say, is that the bible should also have no say on our government as well. Religion should, and is, also limited in the US, contrary to popular belief. Religion has been limited to 1st, no human sacrifice. (We don't need them crazy beheading Aztec's coming in and just start slicing peoples heads off right?) Second, separation of church and state. That right there means religion is not allowed to say, "You can't be gay, ban gay marriage." (And oddly, it still managed to happen.) I'm really looking forward to the supreme courts ruling on this, as long as they decide to take the case.
Bryan Pregon

The Air Force will now allow airmen to omit 'so help me God' from enlistment oaths - Th... - 2 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...p-me-god-from-enlistment-oaths

shared by Bryan Pregon on 18 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 18 Sep 14
     
    "After an airman was unable to complete his reenlistment because he omitted the part of a required oath that states "so help me God," the Air Force changed its instructions for the oath."
peytonjs

Mike Huckabee: The Supreme Court can't overrule God - CNNPolitics.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by peytonjs on 30 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • peytonjs on 30 Apr 15
     
    "I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God," he said. "When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created."
  • desertratt on 30 Apr 15
     
    But you can't legislate morality!
Bryan Pregon

Group: Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say 'so help me God' | Air Force Time... - 0 views

www.airforcetimes.com/...ment-refusing-say-help-me-God-

shared by Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 14
     
    "An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied reenlistment last month for refusing to take an oath containing "so help me God," the American Humanist Association said Thursday."
Jeremy Vogel

Boy Scouts reconsiders policy against gay membership - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 28 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 28 Jan 13
     
    (CNN) -- The Boy Scouts of America is considering changing its longstanding policy against allowing openly gay members, according to a release from the organization. The organization, which has 2.7 million members, is "potentially discussing" doing away with its policy after months of nationwide protest, including hundreds of angry Eagle scouts renouncing their hard-earned awards and mailing back their red-white-and-blue medals.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Payton Whiteaker on 01 Feb 13
     
    Interesting idea as to how this would work. Let the independent group decide, I wonder how that would work out, and if their would be conflict at national events.
  • gharvey949 on 04 Feb 13
     
    As an Eagle Scout, I would feel very awkward sleeping in the same tent as a gay kid.
  • Melissa Christensen on 04 Feb 13
     
    I would consider applying the idea of "no acceptable relationship in a workplace" in this situation...
  • joecarbis on 05 Feb 13
     
    I think grayson holds a very good point...
  • gharvey949 on 05 Feb 13
     
    It isn't just about sleeping in the same tent as a gay kid, one of the biggest things of being a Boy Scout is serving god. Most people who are gay usually aren't religious because in most religions being gay is a sin.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Feb 13
     
    Regarding Grayson's comment about god and the BoyScouts, not only will the BSA kick you out for being gay, but also atheist or agnostic scouts or leaders are not allowed. Here is more on the controversies including a Supreme Court challenge won by the BoyScouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Position_on_atheists_and_agnostics
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Feb 13
     
    Grayson your statement that gay people usually aren't religious isn't necessarily true. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights This link shows that, while they may not be as religious as heterosexuals, gay men and women are still religious people. Religion is an extremely personal thing for people and everyone can read a religious text and come out with different interpretations. Going back to the Boy Scouts, they are a private organization that a person is asking to join. Although I disagree with their current policies I feel that it is their right to make those policies if they would like. However, with diminishing membership and corporate sponsorship because of some of these policies they may have to reevaluate them as time goes on like they are doing now. What's interesting is that the Boy Scouts of America is one of the few members of the World Scouting movement that has a ban on Homosexuals. The equivalent programs in Canada and a majority of Europe do not have such bans and they have no issue with homosexual scouts making a commitment to God.
  • gharvey949 on 07 Feb 13
     
    If you were a Boy Scout or a Girl Scout you would understand.
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Feb 13
     
    re:Grayson -- an Iowan Eagle Scout named Zack Wahls disagrees with you. The second video linked from CNN gives both sides a chance to respond to the BSA's recent dilemma. http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/opinion/wahls-gays-scouting/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
  • Ryan Loye on 08 Feb 13
     
    I'm not saying I'm against gays and stuff but I just wouldnt feel right if I knew that there where homosexuals in a group with my child I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that.
Jeremy Vogel

Westboro Baptist Church Says It Will Picket Vigil For Connecticut School Shooting Victims - 1 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...school-shooting_n_2312186.html

Government News HuffPost

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 17 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 17 Dec 12
     
    The Westboro Baptist Church, the controversial group known for protesting outside funerals of slain U.S. service members, announced that it will picket a vigil for the victims of Friday's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the second-deadliest school shooting in American history.
  • ...10 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 18 Dec 12
     
    KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/
  • patrick boian on 18 Dec 12
     
    I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals
  • mdollen288 on 18 Dec 12
     
    They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.
  • Ryan Loye on 18 Dec 12
     
    I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.
  • garrett lee on 18 Dec 12
     
    i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.
  • gharvey949 on 18 Dec 12
     
    It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.
  • jessicavaldez on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.
  • Melissa Christensen on 18 Dec 12
     
    I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.
  • Dylan Garner on 19 Dec 12
     
    I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.
  • Mallory Huggins on 19 Dec 12
     
    I hope they lose their tax-exempt status. Here's an article with more information on their 501(c)3 status and how they could lose it. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/westboro_baptist_churchs_tax-exempt_status_challenged_20121218/ Personally, I think their protests are clearly staged with the intent to influence politics. (They want gay marriage outlawed)
  • dalton burk on 21 Dec 12
     
    well if the parents know they are gonna protest have the funeral be private so they can't protest
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

www.wowt.com/...e-Death-Penalty-182678981.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • joecarbis on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  • Natalie Wilson on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.
  • caseyyard on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  • garrett lee on 10 Dec 12
     
    i think we should have the death penalty
  • gharvey949 on 10 Dec 12
     
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  • Ryan Loye on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 10 Dec 12
     
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  • Molly Wyant on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  • blakewilladsen on 10 Dec 12
     
    It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population
  • jessicavaldez on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.
  • Melissa Christensen on 10 Dec 12
     
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  • aaron valdivia on 10 Dec 12
     
    Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Dec 12
     
    I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • joecarbis on 11 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  • Dylan Garner on 11 Dec 12
     
    Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.
  • bvasquez13 on 11 Dec 12
     
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  • gharvey949 on 11 Dec 12
     
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  • aaron valdivia on 11 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Dec 12
     
    For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • jacob whalen on 12 Dec 12
     
    It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.
  • joecarbis on 13 Dec 12
     
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  • Dylan Garner on 13 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
  • dalton burk on 13 Dec 12
     
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Dec 12
     
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    I am prison
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
  • Dylan Garner on 18 Dec 12
     
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  • Emili Davis on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  • joecarbis on 19 Dec 12
     
    @Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  • Molly Wyant on 19 Dec 12
     
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Mallory Huggins

Oops, I left my sexual orientation at home - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Mallory Huggins on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 22 Oct 12
     
    I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D
  • Jenny Ord on 23 Oct 12
     
    my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you
Bryan Pregon

Despite Objections, Prayer At Graduation Still On - 4 views

www.wowt.com/...uation_Still_On_150351025.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 May 12 - No Cached
  • seamusstclair on 07 May 12
     
    If people feel uncomfortable praying at the graduation, then they can just not pray. They can be respectful of those who are. That is their right.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • kevindickey on 07 May 12
     
    Doesn't sound like too many people objected, but I defiantly would.
  • jonflorea on 07 May 12
     
    I think that's pretty cool, I also think it's something they should keep doing because its not like you have to do it. You can just sit their and close your eyes.
  • Riley Barton on 07 May 12
     
    It is your choice whether you pray at graduation or not. If you believe you should, then pray. If not, then don't do it.
  • kevindickey on 08 May 12
     
    What if some one holds beliefs different from yours? If someone wanted a prayer in Hindi or Arabic, would you allow that too? What if some one followed the occult, could they then conduct a pagan ritual in front of the graduating class? Equal voice or no voice. A prayer that makes no reference to no one single religion, god, or culture is the only acceptable one.
  • katilyn olinde on 09 May 12
     
    i agree with seamus. they do have the right and if they are not for it then you don't have to to do it.
  • Kenzie Pike on 09 May 12
     
    I think it should be your choice and if you want to you can and if you dont then you dont have to
  • kevindickey on 09 May 12
     
    I want there to be a prayer that revolves around the teachings of the Satanic Bible, and any one who objects can choose not to participate while those who want to, can assist in singing the praises of the Church of Satan and our Lord Satan. It's only fair that we do both, right? That's what everyone else has been saying.
  • drake prazak on 10 May 12
     
    seems fair to me, not a fan of it tho.
  • seamusstclair on 16 May 12
     
    Kevin does have a point... but I feel like if they would like some different form of prayer or praise, then they have the right to have that prayer, and the others should be respectful. Not saying I agree with Satanic practices at all, but they do have rights too. So if they want different ones, they should request them.
Bryan Pregon

New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving - 23 views

hosted.ap.org/...US_DRIVING_STONED

shared by Bryan Pregon on 19 Mar 12 - No Cached
  • garrettcollier on 19 Mar 12
     
    This women is given a medical drug. When she drive's when she's is still high? So if she is getting medical weed and they make a law stating that you can not be "high" or drugged up before driving. Then why doesn't the government give them transportation, sure buses work if you live in the city, or taxi's. But why should she have to pay when the hospitals are giving it to her.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • drake prazak on 20 Mar 12
     
    Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?
  • garrettcollier on 20 Mar 12
     
    Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.
  • drake prazak on 20 Mar 12
     
    if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.
  • garrettcollier on 21 Mar 12
     
    Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.
  • Brittney Russell on 21 Mar 12
     
    i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.
  • Captain Crunk on 21 Mar 12
     
    I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!
  • Jessica Lewis on 21 Mar 12
     
    I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!
  • tyler woodruff on 21 Mar 12
     
    i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.
  • Jeff Reddish on 21 Mar 12
     
    There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.
  • Riley Barton on 22 Mar 12
     
    I believe she should not be driving while under the influence. Even if she is prescribed the drug, there should be warnings and other precautions taken to prevent accidents.
  • Joel Grimm on 23 Mar 12
     
    Maybe she should try cocaine I heard that works too.
Jeremy Vogel

Tennessee Teacher Pushed Out For Supporting Free Speech Of Gay And Atheist Students - 1 views

thinkprogress.org/...ch-of-gay-and-atheist-students

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Sep 12
     
    In May, the Lenoir City High School faculty was threatened with a criminal investigation for publishing a yearbook story titled, "It's OK To Be Gay."
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Holly Jensen on 11 Sep 12
     
    This is ridiculous. It's so disrespectful not only to the students but to any community that's suffered discrimination. Who's to say they won't start being sexist or discriminate against African Americans?
  • Alex Snipes on 11 Sep 12
     
    I don't think it is necessary to put something in a school yearbook about being gay, because there is nothing about being straight. Yes, people may think being gay is OK, but there is no reason for that to be in a high school yearbook, that has nothing to do with the school. If no one is allowed to talk about their religion or God in school, then we also shouldn't be able to talk about being gay. I've never seen a section in a yearbook titled "Its OK to be Christian." Yes, people should be allowed to be gay, but it doesn't need to be flaunted like that.
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    I had read about this story before, and as a teacher I am impressed that Mr. Yoakley had the courage to let his students have a voice. Putting myself in his position, would make for a hard decision when faced with losing a job you love but I hope I would do the same.
  • Holly Jensen on 13 Sep 12
     
    I understand them not having to have something in the book but maybe it was for their LGBT Club and they wanted to do a story on it just like they would for some other club or student council. I don't think it was right for them to fire the teacher for it. And you can talk about religion in school you just can't try and force or push it on others. I know that here were have a club for christian athletes and they even pray under the flag in front of school.
  • Mallory Huggins on 14 Sep 12
     
    In Iowa, at least, I know that it's illegal for a school to bar a student run publication from publishing a piece. Yes, there aren't sections in yearbooks with titles like "it's OK to be Christian," but I think that's because no needs to be told that. Homosexuality is currently a big political issue. I think that if Christianity were currently an issue as large as homosexuality students would be writing about it. Besides, saying we shouldn't talk about political issues, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to "flaunt" their sexuality is, in my opinion, simply another way of condoning persecution of them.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Sep 12
     
    The fact as to how they treated this teacher is outrageous. He is allowing students to express themselves, and the school is completely violating the first amendment. A student explaining there beliefs is allowable, and in no way breaking a law. Considering this is a student written newspaper, you cannot bar that students article simply because it talks about religion. They would be oppressing atheists, and showing support to those with religion, the school should not be able to bar an article like that. This is no different from a student expressing there sexuality. If you truly have a massive problem with it, think of it in the following hypothetical way: An article is written in the school newspaper about the upcoming homecoming dance. There is a little bit of advice for girls saying they should make there man pay for them. This is supporting heterosexuality, and is in no different from an article supporting homosexuality. Either the above hypothetical in the newspaper should be say, man (Or women depending on your interests,) or it should be removed if you cannot place an article about being gay in a newspaper.
  • Kirstina Michl on 14 Sep 12
     
    As a Yearbook student myself, I would honestly be a little surprised if someone brought up the idea to place a story about homosexuality or atheism in the yearbook, but only because the Yearbook tells stories about the entire school year, and doesn't really talk about the opinions of the writers. I personally think that it would make more sense to place it in the opinion section of the school's newspaper. However, if they want to place the story in the yearbook, then they need to be allowed to place it wherever they please. Like most people pointed out, it's violating the first amendment.
  • Michaela Koopmeiners on 14 Sep 12
     
    It's okay for him to stick up for people that are gay or being atheist, but that shouldn't be published in a yearbook, which has nothing to do with school.
  • Alexis Theos on 20 Sep 12
     
    ^ Michaela it has to do with gay bullying, i believe it is relevant.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    Michaela, homosexuality is a part of almost every high school. GSA, (gay straight alliance) a club at our school. That alone means it has to do with school. A yearbook article on that would be just as relevant on a article about chess club, or mock trial, or a sport. If you honestly, and truly disagree with me, then how is it not as important as any of those things?
Dakota Smith

Sandusky Arrested again - 5 views

www.cnn.com/video

shared by Dakota Smith on 07 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Dakota Smith on 07 Dec 11
     
    SICKO
  • Derek Large on 07 Dec 11
     
    MY GOD. why cant they leave him in prison for once. He cant get away with it anymore so what is their problem with putting him in prison for the rest of his life???
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    for a man his age, rehabilitation will be near impossible. you cant teach an old dog new tricks. If let out he will continue to molest young boys. The only solution, is life in prison.
ladasia

Family with epileptic son touched after stranger pays for dinner, sends kind note - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/family-epilepsy-131659087.html

news One Act of Random Kindness (ARK)

shared by ladasia on 04 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • ladasia on 04 Sep 13
     
    Stranger pays for family's dinner leaving kind note : "God only gives special children to special people."
Deja Hathaway

Police: Minnesota teen planned school massacre - 10 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

Government

shared by Deja Hathaway on 02 May 14 - No Cached
  • Deja Hathaway on 02 May 14
     
    (CNN) -- A teenage boy had a plan. According to authorities in Waseca, Minnesota, John David LaDue, 17, was going to kill his family, start a diversionary fire, set off bombs at an area school, kill the resource officer there and then shoot students.
  • gabriella24 on 05 May 14
     
    Oh my God, if the police hadn't been tipped off there may have possibly been the biggest massacre in school history! This boy had a big plan, and I'm really glad it wasn't executed.
  • Kelly Hickey on 05 May 14
     
    Why do people do this? It said he was close to his sister, why kill her?. It's strange that he to idolizes a previous school shooter.
xolson974

Shia LaBeouf Arrested After Allegedly Attacking 25-Year-Old During Anti-Trump Protest - 33 views

people.com/...hia-labeouf-handcuffed-protest

shared by xolson974 on 26 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 26 Jan 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf was arrested in New York early Thursday during a protest against President Donald Trump after he allegedly attacked a 25-year-old man - and video of the entire incident was posted online. The 30-year-old actor was taken into custody around 12:30 a.m.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Matthew E on 26 Jan 17
     
    Not only did Shia have the courage to do this, but he kept going which was his mistake, and all outside the museum with his art in it. This could lead to multiple up riots, maybe even more violence. But Shia got off about scott free.
  • Deven Przybylski on 26 Jan 17
     
    If you don't know the background of Shia, you wouldn't understand why he went off like that. First off, the man he was yelling at was a neo nazi. He had said 1488 which is a reference to Hitler and the holocaust. Shia is Jewish, his name literally means praise god in Hebrew. Shia may have gone too far if it were just a common mistake, but when your ancestors have been killed in WW2, you're not going to be happy. He shouldn't have been arrested, the white supremacist should've for representing hate.
  • mwheeler21 on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Deven the man was just picking a fight and he got exactly what he wanted, nothing against Shia.
  • agrosas on 30 Jan 17
     
    I think it was wrong for that person to say that to Shia LaBeouf, that guy just want to see how mad he would get, most did it on purpose.
  • jwells549 on 31 Jan 17
     
    I think that the guy got what he deserved. Maybe Shia shouldn't be so aggressive towards opposing sides of politics, like supporters, protesters, ect, but you can't fix or control somebody else's behavior and beliefs. So, since the man was pushing Shia's rage on and on, Shia snapped, and I believe the man got what he deserved.
  • delaniehubbard on 07 Feb 17
     
    Everyone has there opinions and beliefs obviously and everyone is not going to get along, when you act out and hurt people for expressing there opinions you cant expect to not get punished. Especially when your around lots of people, you can't expect to not do or say anything.
  • sydney matheny on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia could've used less violence but in a way I don't blame him because the man was saying things that were really bad and offended shia.
  • lauren rambo on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven and Sydney. The man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't all innocent but I don't blame him for his actions
  • jcolburn544 on 07 Feb 17
     
    This is an example of growing tension between groups. nation seems divided by pro and anti trump people. the fact that people are speaking their mind is a positive, the fact that our president is causing so much negative uproar so early into his term is a negative.
  • brettday on 07 Feb 17
     
    him using violence only builds support towards the opposite cause.
  • dallastomasello on 07 Feb 17
     
    The young man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't innocent but I don't blame him for what he did.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Jake, this fight shows the nation being further separated between pro-trump people and anti-trump people.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Lauren that the man was picking a fight and I also don't blame Shia for his actions either.
  • Alex Thacker on 07 Feb 17
     
    I don't think it was right for Shia to do what he did but I don't blame him and I see why he did what he did.
  • ahopkins571 on 07 Feb 17
     
    I think this is kind of stupid, Shia should have had the self control not to get into that type of interaction especially because he's a well known person it kind of puts a shadow over him in some ways
  • nick perry on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia should of had some self control, but I see why he did it and don't blame him as well.
  • Landon Mohr on 16 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven. The Neo Nazi was just trying to pick a fight because he knew Shia's background. I understand why Shia did what he did but maybe he does deserve some type of consequence for his actions. Even though the man was trying to pick a fight Shia could've easily just been the bigger person and should've had the self control to walk away.
  • ncollier786 on 16 Mar 17
     
    The man he attacked shouldn't have said what he said so I think Shia was justified to do what he did. The man was asking for it.
  • marly mcmullen on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't blame Shia for fighting this man. Shia could have taken care of it in a different manner but it was out of reaction and the man was pushing his limits. Shia should have not been taken into custody for this.
  • megan sinclair on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think he did nothing wrong, he was defending what he stood for and the Neo Nazi was saying unfair things.
  • abomba12 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think maybe hitting him was going far but he was telling this man to knock it off by what he did to him which is because ti disrupts the social environment. That wasn't the place for someone to talk about hitler and i think it was fine that he taught that man a lesson.
  • lexus2 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't think Shia is wrong for fighting the man, but she could of did something different then fighting him.
  • mhennings622 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I agree with most of the comments above, The man that Shia attacked should have not said anything to him because the guy just wanted a reaction from him. Also Shia was in the wrong for attacking the man, he could have just walked away and not put his hands on the man.
  • caileyhartenhoff on 16 Mar 17
     
    I believe that the comments of the man who claimed victim were wrong. However, everything comes down to perspective. The whole debate is whether or not Shia being arrested for assault was right or wrong. Both sides are at fault. Shia should have had more control especially due to his celebrity standing. Everything a celebrity does is under close inspection and is able to be blown way out of proportion. The man was obviously saying the things he was to get under Shia's skin. However, assaulting someone with physical scrathches being documented is immature. Be the bigger person and walk away.
  • morgann1 on 16 Mar 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf attacked a 25-year old man for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" outsid eo ghis museum. I believe he could have handled the situation better than the way he did, i understand he was sticking up for what he believes in but he could have approached the guy a different way.
  • Emalie Bowman on 16 Mar 17
     
    With all due respect, I don't believe that most people saying that he should react differently would handle the situation peacefully. You'd be outraged if there was a genocide of Christians that had happened not even a century ago, and a random stranger (knowing you are of that religion) said something similar to "Hitler did nothing wrong", you'd be livid. It is essentially implying "they deserved it." Yes, he has a right to share his opinion. But opinions are more along the lines of "I prefer coffee over tea", not "I think that Jews are less than human, therefore Hitler did nothing wrong because they deserve to die." But it's not simply that, it goes beyond the Holocaust. Jews were the world's scapegoat for CENTURIES before the Holocaust. They've been targeted for centuries, and if I were religious and devoted to my religion and somebody said that to me. I'd more than likely react the same way. Yes, Shia deserved to be punished, he assaulted the dude. But the other guy had it coming for egging him on at what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
  • rwilladsen586 on 17 Mar 17
     
    I think the man was trying to pull a publicity stunt on the actor because he's aware of some of his past actions and he purposely tried to get a rise out of him. Was it legal? Yes. Was it Right? No
  • ahayden800 on 20 Mar 17
     
    I agree with Reed, the person did this to get a rise out of the actor.
  • Jorden Crinklaw on 20 Mar 17
     
    The protester was clearly trying to upset Shia enough for him to attack him. Because once that happened, he was arrested and it was put all over the news, making him look like he attacked an innocent person for absolutely no reason.
1 - 20 of 21 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page