From Our One Nation Under God:
Our One Nation Under God, a Judeo-Christian movement, in conjunction with St. Mark Roman Catholic Church will present Congressman Andy Harris, 1st Congressional District of Maryland, to address “Moral Issues at the Federal Level” on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. The presentation will be held at the Msgr. McCall Center – St. Mark Church, 2407 Laurel Brook Road, Fallston, MD 21047. Bring a family member/friend.
Hey Andy, why don’t you answer that question?
@jesus…..why would you even say something like that? You not only offend me, but everyone else who believes. I am sure Andy is against gay marriage…100%, but it is comments like yours that turns people off. Most people are for giving rights for same sex unions, but don’t push it down our throats. Also, Andy has spent way too much time on nothing. He makes it seems that Sara Palin is someone to listen too. Just do your job Andy and represent the people of the 1st without trying to make a political statement everytime!
Why? To offend you, just like Andy’s use of religious ideology and complete lack of evidence when forming an opinion on an issue that limits the rights of others is offensive to rational people.
Hey, believe what you want, but, since you didn’t know, Jesus was gay. In my bible, he wanted to marry each of his disciples, but because of faith-based retards who don’t truly believe like Andy, it was illegal. I guess your version of the bible “danced” around the issue. I can’t beleive that you have been lied to all of these years. There is lots of evidence for Jesus’s homosexuality, too, just like there is a lots of evidence for the flood, and the virgin birth and the resurrection.
Stop believing in fairy tales and join the twenty-first century!
PROVE IT….bet ya can’t
My comment apparently went directly over your head. Thanks for making my point.
You still didn’t prove your point? I don’t mind talking with people who have something to say, but apparently yours is just dripple. END OF DISCUSSION
Is dribble the same as dripple? Look try and read what he has to say again and turn off the outraged Christian filter. When you look at it in that light and realize promoting your beliefs at the expense of everyone else’ violates the Golden Rule then maybe you will have that epiphany we have been waiting for you to have.
Offended, please provide the objective evidence that Jesus existed, along with the objective evidence of his actions outlined in the New Testament. Your argument is based on your faith and your belief in the Bible; a tome that has been translated and re-interpreted from second hand accounts for the last two millenia. Have you found first hand accounts that date to some time before the 80 AD time frame assigned by religious scholars to the earliest New Testament documents?
I understand you want proof of the assertions made by the previous comment, however your allegations are not based on rock solid evidence either.
He can’t prove it anymore then you can prove the existence of God or Jesus is the Son of God. Some things you simply have FAITH in. That is why it is called FAITH. You don’t have more FAITH than someone else by screaming at them and getting them to believe as you!
@CDEV……That couldn’t have been said better. No point in agruing issues that people have strong points of view on. I know what I believe and everyone else is free to believe what they want.
Great…just don’t let your right to have an opinion impinge on the rights of others for no other reason than your religious beliefs…which is exactly what Andy does.
Offended, Thanks for agreeing but what I just told you is exactly what David and JWG have been trying to convey to you.
Being gay is superior to being heterosexual. We’ll normalize all aberrant relationships.
Soon it will be legal to marry in any combination imaginable.
Just how homosexual Jesus wanted it. Can I get an amen!
Everyone should violate natural law.
Unnatural acts should be taught in schools as acceptable and superior to natural acts. It’s not perversion if we make the unnatural the preferred and ideal.
Just how Jesus did it…unnaturally and sometimes with three or four men at one time. He was quite the stud. Alot like his mother.
He’s trying to get you to think outside of your dogmatic comfort zone. And I agree, ignorance at all levels offends me. What business does an elected representative have dictating morality? I don’t think that’s what he’s paid for. But you go ahead and enable him. I can see you want more government intrusion into everyone’s personal affairs, especially those that are different form you.
Couldn’t agree more!!!!
@david…you make some good comments, but this is not one of them.
You asked: “What business does an elected representative have dictating morality?”
Happens all the time. We have dictates against murder, rape, incest, theft or any other crime that has a moral component – I think that would be all of them. Truth is, if I want to take something of yours – what stops me?
Do I refrain because it is fundamentally (morally) wrong, or simply because the law says not to?
If it is fundamentally wrong – who says it is wrong? Frankly, I don’t ever recall being asked in the voting booth if it was wrong, or even a simple survey. Is it just some arbitrarily agreed-to conventional wisdom? Or does it come from authority much higher – say, a deity? Bottom line – something like moral authority has to have an author, and if we take your argument to its extreme [not dictated by leaders, but held by each of us], should my [fictional] desire to take goods be denied to me? If so, by whose authority? Yours? Rep. Harris? God’s?
If I refrain simply because it is illegal – that would not speak very highly of me. If my memory of psychology class serves me correctly such logic is routinely displayed among 2-4 year-olds. Think in terms of touching the brakes as you pass a police car along the side of the road. Why are the brakes touched? Something in the road? A safety precaution? The presence of a patrol car?
Bottom line is that morals are legislated all the time. The courts’ dockets are packed with cases of immoral acts committed against victims. It would be more true to say that you, and people like you, oppose moral laws in areas where opinions differ. We probably agree that murder, theft and other mayhem ought to be illegal – for obvious reasons. Other areas may not find such harmony, but that does not make any of it less moralistic of a question.
It is true that there are people among us who feel we will all answer to God for our actions. That care and concern prompts them to insist that the government not enable and thus become a party to those unlawful (in the eyes of God) choices. In the realm of public opinion and majority rule – that is their right. If the people who favor such behaviors can convince a majority of the people to agree with their perspective, then they can exercise those rights also.
What I personally cannot stand is the futile attempt to wrap the moral questions facing our elected officials into the same genre of rights as this country struggled with long ago, and still does. What offends me is a governor who sits in front of a committee of elected officials and states that the citizens’ voices are subservient to the voices of the fewer number of elected officials influenced by special interests.
You say, “If the people who favor such behaviors can convince a majority of the people to agree with their perspective, then they can exercise those rights also.”
How do you convince faith-based retards of anything when they already believe in things without evidence and only use faith to justify their beliefs? You can’t. And that is why religion can be used to justify anything and in my opinion has no business being used by our elected officials when passing laws that take away an individual’s rights, as is the case with laws that continue to maintain inequalities in marriage benefits. People can believe in any god, or gods, or gay gods, or heterosexual gods, or transvestite gods (which reminds, Jesus was known for dressing like his mother…look it up…I think the passage is in Matthew Chapter 4 Verse 69!), but when they use their religious beliefs to take away the rights of others is when rational people should be taking them to task.
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between a discussion of an activity behind a closed bedroom door between consenting adults and behaviors that inflict pain and suffering on others. The fact that you wrote extensively about it without really addressing the degree of differences involved in your comparison suggests you are simply one of those self righteous souls bent on instilling your concept of morality on anyone that disagrees with you – and expecting the state to back you up. And yes, morality is subjective. As an example I would say your comments that are designed to suggest your perceived superiority are offensive, tactless and downright ignorant. If you don’t like the way your country is going, I urge you to remember the slogan from the 60’s: America, Love it or Leave it. Otherwise sit down, shut up and pay your taxes.
David Porter
The same could be said for you Mr. Porter. America, Love It or Leave It. Otherwise, shut up, sit down and pay your taxes!
Harris spends far too much time on religion based issues and catering to the religious crowd’s agenda. Focus on mainstream issues that matter to the majority people.
He was invited by a church to have a meeting to discuss moral issues on a federal level and you guys are attacking him for not caring about “mainstream issues”.
Same sex marriage is being debated on a state level, not a federal level so that is completely mute to this conversation.
An extremely hot topic recently that is gathering most of the news headlines is the Obama Administration requiring that Churches pay for birth control for their employees even if it is against the tenants of what their religion is about. This is a clear violation of the separation between Church and State and is a huge “mainstream issue” if you go by what the mainstream press is covering. Is being pregnant a disease? It’s an interesting debate and while I wouldn’t attend because I don’t care, it is still capturing headline after headline so it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
I don’t see how gay marriage “is completely mute to this conversation.” There are many in Congress, including Andy who want a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.
I do agree with regard to the intesity of the contraception issue. Although I think ultimately it will come down to the constitutionality of the affordable health care act. If the government can mandate everyone have healthcare, then more than likely they will be able to dicatate what that healthcare must include. Odds are with the current supreme court, the government mandate will be found unconstitutional so the contraception issue will be mute to this conversation.
Constitutionality of the Health Care Act and the Constitutionality of making a church do something that is against it’s belief system are two different issues. One is a question of whether government has the power to force individuals to purchase a good or service, the other is whether government can force a church into doing something.
The government prevents individuals from using peyote for recreational drug purposes, but does not prevent it in the cases of peyote being used in the Native American Church practices because it is a major tenant of its religious practices (the religion is actually called Peyotism).
I personally feel the Health Care act, while wrong, is Constitutional because the commerce clause gives great power to the government undert he current interpetation by the Supreme Court, but if you try to apply this to a church, then it would violate a different Constitutional area of law.
Gay marriage on a federal level is a mute issue because the Congress on its own cannot pass a Constitutional Amendment, and the votes are no where near being there to outlaw Same Sex Marriage. It’s not being debated, so in fact, you are the one bringing up a “non-mainstream issue” into the conversation.
The contraception issue is only an issue if the administration tells churches specificlly. If all large employers are required to offer healthcare with x, y and z than it wouldnot single them out.
Hey Gay Jesus – It’s moot not mute. And in your case you are moot and if only you were mute.
Well fortuately for you that you have had the opportunity to discover the real truth from my words, that Jesus was a homosexual and wants all of those like him to have the benefits of marriage, just like everyone else. Take that to your church on Sunday and explain to your congregation that they can stop believing the lies they have for so long. You have finally had the truth revealed to you. Go my son! Spread the word!
Stillwell while you are correcting grammar you should not it is you’re not your as you used it above. While I am clearly not perfect as you and Phil pointed out today, I generally do not run around correcting grammar with bad grammar in my own post!
@Cdev
If you’re going to correct me you should make certain you’re right! Please read my post again, nimble wit.
I wrote – “Hey Gay Jesus – It’s moot not mute. And in your case you are moot and if only you were mute.”
I see it seems to have changed!!!!! Thanks for being so curteous and polite! Perhaps you can hurle some more rude, condecending insults down at the rest of us. Maybe you can even try hurling your food like a chimp as well!
@Cdev
Are you so foolish to suggest that I have a administrative permission from the Dagger to edit or change my posts?
By the way “curteous” should be courteous and “condecending” should be condescending. You really should use spell check!
Perhaps!!!!
As has been suggested by other people in other places on similar topics… there is an agenda. And Mr Harris is feeding into the agenda. Would he be as eager to attend a meeting of the Aryan Nation? He wants to be seen as caring about moral issues, that is why he accepted. If that is more important to him than working together to balance the budget and making the federal government fiscally responsible than he has chosen his audience to suit the needs of his appearance, but not what should be the objectives of his office. I certainly did not elect him to express his thoughts on morality at a federal level.
You are entitled to your opinion. Unless you have spoken with Rep. Harris, you don’t really know why he attended.
Did you vote for Mr. Harris? If you did, why?
Nope. I thought he was a nut.
David Porter,
Not sure what you mean by “I certainly did not elect him”. Did you vote for him? Is that what you mean? I voted for him and I fulyy expect him to express his thoughts on morality. So I guess old Andy, assuming you did vote for him, is between a rock and a hard place if he wants to satisfy us both. If you didn’t vote for him then I wouldn’t know why he would care about your preferences. Has he been concerned about fiscal and economic issues? He certainly has but most of what is posted here on the Dagger takes him to task for that. Too bad. Obama is ceretainly concerned about moral issues and are we taking him to task for that? Last I checked he is at the Federal level. At least until the election.
With any luck Alex he will be re-elected, if only because of the divide apparent on the GOP side between people that seem to want to legislate their brand of morality versus a guy that flip flops on hot button issues that formerly appealed to the left leaning constituents of his former State of governance. What I can’t get over is how much hate just seems to ooze from that party. I believe David Eisenhower (Son of Ike) once observed in a newspaper editorial that he does not recognize the Republican party of his father. I can barely recognize it as the Republican party of Nixon or Reagan. These guys you have managed to prop up seem to be little more than milder versions of Glenn Beck. And as whacky as some of you think Ron Paul is, to me he sounds like the most consistent of the bunch with regard to government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Fortunately I don’t have to choose between any of them. They scare the hell out of me.
President Eisenhower didn’t have a son named David. He did have a grandson whose middle name was David.
Dear David A. Porter,
“You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between a discussion of an activity behind a closed bedroom door between consenting adults and behaviors that inflict pain and suffering on others.”
Not really. Inflicting pain and suffering on others – is that the standard for illegal activity? Is that from Black’s Law Dictionary? Is that from a criminal law treatise, which one? You would benefit greatly from learning a little bit about criminal law.
“The fact that you wrote extensively about it without really addressing the degree of differences involved in your comparison suggests you are simply one of those self righteous souls bent on instilling your concept of morality on anyone that disagrees with you – and expecting the state to back you up.”
This comment has all the marks of projecting. I suggest strongly that you enroll in a forensics course – fast.
“And yes, morality is subjective.”
We agree on something.
“As an example I would say your comments that are designed to suggest your perceived superiority are offensive, tactless and downright ignorant.”
There is the projecting again…
“If you don’t like the way your country is going, I urge you to remember the slogan from the 60?s: America, Love it or Leave it.”
Followed up with a classic deflection.
“Otherwise sit down, shut up and pay your taxes.”
Glad you are not the one being arrogant and self-righteous. Hmm, what is it about you that makes your opinion so right and others’ so wrong? Why is it that voices contrary to yours should be silenced? Do you have any belief in the 1st Amendment – at all?
Mr. Porter, I do have a question for you – does it bother you that you type here and sound like a tantrum laden dolt?
I’m pretty much done with this discussion, as it were. You’ve proven that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss a topic without flinging accusations around – accusations founded not on actual words provided by me, mind you; but by mere conclusions you formed within the confines of your perception with no clarification on my part. And you called me ignorant. The irony. You are a classic fail.
I am so happy you like to quote me. Do you do any impressions or is everything you do derivative of what someone else original has to say?
Seriously, how old are you? You strike me as being about 13 or 14.
It seems clear to me that Andy Harris will be speaking about the amended rule that religiously affiliated colleges, universities and hospitals that raise religious objections to birth control can decline the benefits for their employees, however the employees will still receive contraceptive coverage directly from the insurer.
Given the involvement of the Catholic Church and Our One Nation Under God that seems a logical conclusion.