The Precipice: Acceptable Advertising

My Recent Posts

One of the advertisements below is banned by Washington DC Metro policy.  No... it's not the one for Squirt.org.

 

 

 

I would write a lengthy exposition on degrading morality, decaying society, and/or anti-Christian animus... but why?  A picture is worth a thousand words (so what are two worth?)

 

The simple fact that one is OK and one is not speaks volumes on all three subjects.  The fact that this is even being debated tells us... we are Rome... we stand at the precipice.

 

John 15:18-19 (NIV) If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Comments

Bill Kamps Added Dec 23, 2017 - 7:26am
Lynn,  I am not a fervent religious advocate, nor am I a prude, so debating this in words would be difficult.  We can even debate the implications of this, but the pictures do tell us something is wrong for sure. 
 
Assuming of course you are correct, that one of them is banned and one is not.   I only say this, because I have been fooled before, and I dont know you, which goes to another problem we have to deal with these days.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 23, 2017 - 7:31am
What happen to Rome?  It started out as a Republic, found concrete its greatest invention, and became the political power beyond any other that existed for centuries.  Rome turned into a class society run by the wealthy and political/military power.  A peoples movement Christianity swept over the land and it co-opted the new people's power and got out of the welfare business.  
 
The top ad is Rome the bottom ad is Christianity.  History repeats it self if the society doesn't learn.  Did we learn?
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 23, 2017 - 7:40am
Guess which religions the governments of the Fabian Socialist or Socialist want to co-opt?  Islam is a class society with a non-elected upper class leadership.  Shown to be stable as any government can be that is a dictatorship.  Birth rates favor Islam in Europe and like Judaism the religions stays together.   
Dino Manalis Added Dec 23, 2017 - 8:20am
Hate breeds more hatred!  Stop it!
TexasLynn Added Dec 23, 2017 - 9:37am
BK >> I am not a fervent religious advocate, nor am I a prude...
 
Which is OK... we all have the free will to choose.  I would hope one does not have to be a religious advocate (or prude) to see something wrong here.
 
BK >> so debating this in words would be difficult. 
 
Agreed... My intent is not to debate the morality or each message (though it is obvious I have an opinion on that... who doesn't).
 
My point is the fact that a local government entity in fact makes the distinction and that says something about where our society finds itself AND where it is heading.  I'm saying history has seen this before...
 
BK >> We can even debate the implications of this, but the pictures do tell us something is wrong for sure.
 
Thank you for catching the main point of the post.  I'm glad someone from a different perspective can see that.
 
BK >> Assuming of course you are correct, that one of them is banned and one is not.
 
OK!  Now THIS is the best part of your comment!  I have profound respect for skepticism!  Keep that up... it will serve you well. :)
 
BK >> I only say this, because I have been fooled before, and I dont know you, which goes to another problem we have to deal with these days.
 
Amen brother!  Always question.  Always search for the truth yourself... it is a lost art in this day and age (as you said).
 
I can only state what I know/read from various sources and provide some of those sources... the rest is up to you (all of us) to become informed.
 
Link: Christian Ads
Link: Gay Hookup Ads
 
Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
TS >> That happen to Rome?...
 
Many think Rome was simply fell to a barbarian invasion; but the barbarians were simply the vaulters who finished Rome off when it imploded from corruption and social/moral decay.
 
TS >> History repeats it self if the society doesn't learn.
 
This has been one of the great truths I have espoused (in life and here at WB).  My only caveat is that we (humanity) rarely learn; thus, the words of Solomon ring true today "There is nothing new under the sun".
 
TS >> Did we learn?
 
No... and we're past the point of no return.
 
TS >> Guess which religions the governments of the Fabian Socialist or Socialist want to co-opt?  Islam...
 
Socialism is one form of social/moral decay... Islam is likely the barbarian horde that will clean up the mess.
 
TS >> Birth rates favor Islam in Europe
 
Europe is lost.  We (the U.S., aren't far behind).
 
Good comments...
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Dino >> Hate breeds more hatred!  Stop it!
 
I know you are generally brief in your comments, Dino, but an expansion on what you mean by hate may be helpful.
 
What do you find objectionable/hateful?
Bill H. Added Dec 23, 2017 - 11:35am
 
I'll certainly agree on this one. Ads should not be banned unless they are vulgar or untruthful.
I am not a religious person, and I have no issues with gays.
Watchdogs of Our Freedom Added Dec 23, 2017 - 11:46am
Thank you, Lynn. Interesting, we think, that your stark juxtaposition, which you wisely note requires little by way of exposition, should receive so much commentary in any case. Contemporary America may indeed be Rome, we wouldn’t presume to debate it—but here in the WOOF cave we persist in slouching obdurately toward Bethlehem. Why give up the fight just because it appears hopeless? (Where’s the fun in that?) Keep speaking out and enjoy Christmas.
Bill Kamps Added Dec 23, 2017 - 12:53pm
Rick,  in these cases I like to apply some common sense.
 
Im sure there are standards governing secular ads.  Im sure they could be rejected for bad taste, nudity, pornography, inciting violence, or just being rude and negative.  No reason religious ads cant be judged the same way.
 
Therefore negative religious ads could be rejected the same way as ads would be rejected that wanted to lynch the manager of the Washington Nationals because of a losing streak. 
 
No one has a right to put any ad they want on the subway, it has to be accepted.  People need to take a breath and use some common sense.  It is not that difficult, it just seems to be sometimes.
TexasLynn Added Dec 23, 2017 - 1:07pm
WOOF, thank you for the comment.  We're probably more in agreement on the path forward than you think.
 
WOOF >> but here in the WOOF cave we persist in slouching obdurately toward Bethlehem.
 
Amen... I'll meet you there.  Bethlehem... the New Jerusalem...
 
WOOF >> Why give up the fight just because it appears hopeless?
 
There I go again... giving the wrong impression.  In terms of America and Western Culture, we are very likely doomed.  That does not mean we (or I) give up the fight.  Quite the contrary; that fact should double our efforts; which I assure you, I will do.  Christ does not command us to win (He already took care of that).  He only asks that we just fight... just be faithful to the end... just run the good race... He will take care of the rest.
 
Also, it very possible I am like Elisha's servant viewing the overwhelming army surrounding us... only to have his eyes opened to see the army of God (on horses and chariots of fire) surrounding his enemies. (2 Kings 6:15-17) Let’s hope so... :)
 
WOOF >> Keep speaking out and enjoy Christmas.
 
Thank you... I will (do both). :)  Same to you...
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Bill >> I'll certainly agree on this one. Ads should not be banned unless they are vulgar or untruthful.
 
Thank you for your perspective Bill.  I think you and I are probably pretty close on this.
 
The problem we might run into is that "vulgar" and "truth" are rather subjective these days.
 
I find the Squirt.org ad unsettling, offensive and indicative of moral decline.  Some would call it vulgar (though I wouldn't say it crosses that line).  I would be equally offended had it been a heterosexual hookup ad.  Guess what... I'm not entitled to go through life un-offended.
 
There are some on WB who would call the Christian ad to be "untruthful" and spreading myth/hate.  They would say such should not be displayed on a government bus system ad space.
 
Bill >> I am not a religious person, and I have no issues with gays.
 
I am a religions person, and view homosexuality as immoral (along with a lot of other socially acceptable heterosexual human behavior).  I have no interest in making any of it illegal.  (Though I wouldn't bestow special rights on it either... but that's another subject).
 
Again... thanks for the contribution to the discussion.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
RW >> Long time lurker, first time commenter. :)
 
Glad you got off the bench. :)  And if this is your first comment... you have done yourself credit, sir.  It is very informed and relevant.
 
RW >> The reason for this situation, as I understand it, is the DC Metro was concerned about potential anti-Muslim ads which could provoke terrorist attacks
 
Though I had not read that... I suspected that was one of the reasons; though I would submit I doubt it was the only reason.  I do suspect anti-Christian animus to be a factor as well.  I believe New York's transit system endured a similar (anti-Islam) ad campaign a few years ago.
 
Up front, let me acknowledge my bias.  I am anti-Islam.  This is not a bias against a people or race (anti-Muslim), but rather the theology (anti-Islam).  Having read the teachings of Muhammad; I find them violent, evil, and antithetical to democracy, freedom, and civilization.  Terrorism is just one of the many and historical fruits (Matthew 7:15-20) of Muhammad's teachings.
 
RW >> If they banned only ads that mentioned Islam (pro or con), but not other religious-themed ads, they’d have a weak defense against lawsuits — so they made a policy of no religious ads.  (They’ll still get sued, but their lawyers told them the blanket-ban for public safety is a more effective legal defense.)
 
There lawyers are right... a blanket ban easier to defend legally.  I just don't think it is constitutional; nor was the Islam threat the only objective.  And easy... does not equal right.
 
RW >> Assum
Bill Kamps Added Dec 23, 2017 - 1:32pm
Lynn, I think the gay ad is more offensive than the Christian ad, but not because I have anything against gays, just that it comes closer to that line of being in bad taste.  Had one of the guys been a woman, it still would have pushed the limits in my mind.
 
The Christian ad doesnt say anything about truth or even does it say anything about religion, it just uses some religious symbols.  Ads dont have to be explicitly true, many ads for many things stretch the truth a bit.
 
Someone is in charge of accepting the ads.  Their judgement wont agree with everyone.  If they are smart they will error on the side of good taste.  All they need to satisfy the lawyers is a disclaimer that says they will judge the acceptance of ads, and their judgment is final.  Its not a big deal.  No policy can avoid all the lawsuits.  People can sue for any reason including dumb ones.
 
To be honest Lynn, I think the problem highlights as much about our litigious society as about our morality. 
 
As for pro or con Islam, the Quaran is just as filled with violence as the Old Testament.  Both books say we should kill all non-believers, and yet most of us have moved passed that urge.  The violent Muslims should be dealt with harshly, and the peaceful ones should be welcomed into our society.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Dec 23, 2017 - 3:56pm
What was the reason given for turning down the ad?
TexasLynn Added Dec 23, 2017 - 5:52pm
BK >> I think the gay ad is more offensive than the Christian ad, but not because I have anything against gays, just that it comes closer to that line of being in bad taste.
 
I do too.  It's just tasteless, and to be honest further stereotypes the gay community which isn't fair to them either.
 
BK >> No policy can avoid all the lawsuits.  People can sue for any reason including dumb ones.
 
Yep... yet another reason we now stand on the precipice to oblivion.  I agree with Shakespeare if we are to step back... "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (from Henry the Sixth) :)
 
BK >> To be honest Lynn, I think the problem highlights as much about our litigious society as about our morality.
 
Which I say is but another comment on our morality.
 
BK >> As for pro or con Islam, the Quaran is just as filled with violence as the Old Testament.  Both books say we should kill all non-believers, and yet most of us have moved passed that urge. 
 
I would say the Quaran is much less tolerant of non-believers, BUT I do have my bias.  As a Christian, I of course believe Christ nailed the old law to the cross.  When he sent his disciples out into the world to spread His gospel, he instructed them on how to deal with non-believers.
 
Matthew 10:14 (NIV) If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.
 
BK >> The violent Muslims should be dealt with harshly...
 
Agreed...
 
BK >> ... and the peaceful ones should be welcomed into our society.
 
Not so agreed.  Live in peace with?  Absolutely.  Welcome immigration?  No... eventually someone (maybe the next generation) reads and believes/follows the teachings of Muhammad; and a terrorist is born.
 
Would I support some immigration?  Sure... but the vetting process would have to be massive with no doubt that the individual was seeking to integrate into our society.  I do not believe that to be true for the majority.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
BG >> What was the reason given for turning down the ad?
 
Policy of turning down all ads having to do with religion.  Supposedly Metro DC was afraid of someone running anti-Islam ads and bringing down the wrath of the Allah Akbar Brigade.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
RW >> Well, I just went to the site in the Christian ad... and, it's a ruse.
 
I'm afraid I'm missing your logic.  I was aware that the site linked to the local Catholic organization and provided Christmas mass information.  How does that equate to ruse?  I'm not Catholic, but see the ad as playing on basic Christian doctrine (the perfect gift of grace, Jesus being the perfect sacrifice, etc) to get clicks.  It's kind of teaser ad.  Now had the web-site been pagan or satanic in nature... then that would have been a ruse.
 
RW >> I find the gay sex website ad to be gross, and would rather not see that on the Metro
 
Same here... but it's legal and constitutional.  It does however also send a message of moral depravity we, as a society, find ourselves in.  We also agree that the hetero ad would be just as inappropriate (though I'd probably be less grossed out).
 
RW >> This speaks to exactly what I feel the core problem is. We (as a society, i.e. the USA/Canada and Western Europe) have confused attacking ideas with attacking ethnic groups.
 
Alright Wiedeman... :)  Right on the money.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Dec 23, 2017 - 6:11pm
Thank you Lynn.
 
I suppose that this is an anti-Pamela Geller measure. She tried to get some ads up on transport station billboards and had to sue. As political speech is core free speech, the courts decided in her favor. Strange enough, the New York metropolitan transportation company then banned all political speech from their billboards to be neutral. Somehow this could not be challenged in court successfully until the Muslim Brotherhood proxy CAIR got an ad up. They circumvened the ban by advertising a political movie 'The Muslims Are Coming' and tried to sell propaganda as a product. Geller sued and won the case. I think, this is then the next step: Banning all religious ads.
 
For all who want to see religious and critical anti-religious ads, gay and family friendly ads, conservative and liberal ads, please, contemplate a donation to the American Freedom Defence Initiative (headed by Geller). The donation is tax-deductible in the US. It finances the lawsuits to run ads and to protect the first Amendment.
TexasLynn Added Dec 23, 2017 - 8:19pm
RW >> I guess I’m too consumer-oriented. This really looked to me like a Christmas gift-suggestion site.
 
You are too consumer-oriented... :)  Expand your mind you dolt... of course the reference was to Christ.
 
RW >> My perfect ruse! Blown!
 
The name/initial didn't do you any favors... but then you're also dealing with a "super genius"; and I just know you so well. :)
 
Feel free to stick around... but fair warning... here, there be nuts; even by your standards. :)
 
To everyone. else... I know this guy.
wsucram15 Added Dec 23, 2017 - 11:56pm
Merry Christmas Lynn
A. Jones Added Dec 24, 2017 - 2:12am
The DC Metro was concerned about potential anti-Muslim ads
 
But lots of things are anti-Muslim. Homosexuality, per se, is officially anti-Muslim (even if some Muslims practice it). If a Muslim group complained about the squirt.com ad, it would probably be removed.
 
In a way, this post mirrors the earlier controversy over displays in public areas (parks, courthouses) of Confederate era memorabilia, such as statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc., and Confederate flags.
Utpal Patel Added Dec 24, 2017 - 4:00am
“Though I had not read that... I suspected that was one of the reasons; though I would submit I doubt it was the only reason.”
 
So now you’re basically saying it’s an anti-Christian conspiracy, seeing you disbelieve the stated reason.  If you had bothered to research the reason behind why the religion ad was banned and Squirt ad was allowed, it all makes complete sense.  It would wise, before you come to broad conclusions about society’s demise, to do some research.  Between not doing your homework and floating conspiracy theories, I wonder what else you’re confused about?
TexasLynn Added Dec 24, 2017 - 12:34pm
wsucram >> Merry Christmas Lynn
 
Jeanne, thank you so much.  This years has had its trials, but I once again find myself truly blessed.  Big family gathering tonight, and big hunting trip in the morning. :)
 
Merry Christmas to you and yours and God's blessings upon you in the new year.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
AJ >> If a Muslim group complained about the squirt.com ad, it would probably be removed.
 
Ahhhh... hard to say which one they (DC Metro) fear more.  The gay lobby can be very vicious; though less in the bombing or decapitation department.
 
AJ >> In a way, this post mirrors the earlier controversy over displays in public areas (parks, courthouses) of Confederate era memorabilia,
 
I would agree... all the way down to that also being an indication of moral and social decay.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
UP >> It would wise, before you come to broad conclusions about society’s demise, to do some research.
 
Are you interpreting “I had not read that” as a lack of research?  Are you reading the article and comments before spouting off?  It would be wise...
 
UP >> If you had bothered to research the reason behind why the religion ad was banned and Squirt ad was allowed, it all makes complete sense.
 
I guess it “makes complete sense” that they followed a policy they wrote for disingenuous reasons.  But “policy” doesn’t equal law, good sense, truth, the reason, or right… which is kinda one of the points of this post.
 
To put it more clearly (I hope), the "reason" stated by Metro DC (it's against the policy) is not the reason.  (see real reasons below) 
 
UP >> So now you’re basically saying it’s an anti-Christian conspiracy,
 
No... conspiracy implies organization; I used the word animus which implies a general hatred, hostility and bias.  I also said this was just ONE of the reasons (which implies multiple).
 
 
To be specific, (because you seem to be missing this) the real (unstated) reasons are:
 

Fear of nut-ball Islamic attacks in reaction to possible anti-Islamic ads (various media types like the Washington Post offer conjecture that this is the reason... not DC Metro)

 

Animus towards Christians (I offer conjecture this is an additional reason)

 

The squirt.org ad was accepted because of leftist bias in favor such causes, moral/social blinders to the social damage caused by such exposure, AND the fact that it's legal.

 
None of these reasons are openly "stated" because 1) You would encourage radical Islamic extortion and attention (see CAIR and terrorists) 2) You would be admitting you are acting against the Constitutional right to freedom of speech & 3) DC Metro may be run by a bunch of spineless, bureaucratic, leftist, weasels... but they're not stupid.
 
So... DC Metro just came up with a “policy” (no religious ads) that would best address both reasons and cover their collective asses in court; the only problem being… it’s unconstitutional.
 
>> Between not doing your homework and floating conspiracy theories…
 
Yeah… like you offered so much “homework/research” to back up the “points” you had to make.
 
>> I wonder what else you’re confused about?
 
Not as much as you... it seems.
 
Anybody can throw a rock at the messenger (they are a dime a dozen on WB and knee-jerk rocks and poo are plentiful) … try countering the message with reasoned argument for a change.  Just a suggestion.
Utpal Patel Added Dec 25, 2017 - 5:36am
Are you interpreting “I had not read that” as a lack of research?  Are you reading the article and comments before spouting off?
 
Yes.  If you were aware of the brouhaha over the anti-Muslim ad and posted this article, you would be guilty of something worse than failure to do your homework.  You’d be guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the story, a very dishonest thing to do.  As for reading the comments, I shouldn’t have to read the comments to grasp the point of your article.  In fact, late in your comment thread when one of your commenters alerted to you of the Muslim ad you said “though I had not read that.” 
 
“But “policy” doesn’t equal law, good sense, truth, the reason, or right… which is kinda one of the points of this post.”
 
Bullshit.  You made no mention of any anti-religious ad policy in your post. 
 
“conspiracy implies organization; I used the word animus which implies a general hatred, hostility and bias.”
 
Conspiracy does not imply animus, would you like the link to Webster’s dictionary?  The reason I used the word conspiracy is because you believe those that dictate policy at the DC Metro are anti-Christian, which means the reason for removing the ad is something other than their stated reason.  The Squirt ad was allowed because it has nothing to do with religion, read DC Metro advertising policy guidelines.  Believing it to be allowed because of some leftist control at DC Metro is just you being a conspiracy theorizing right wing nutcase. 
TexasLynn Added Dec 25, 2017 - 5:20pm
>> If you were aware of the brouhaha over the anti-Muslim ad and posted this article...
 
Your entire premise is based on your false assumption that I failed to notice in my research an Mecro DC anti-Islam ad, or worse knew about it and ignored it.
 
To be clear...  There was NO anti-Islam ad, moron...  They (Metro DC) simply feared someone would request one.  Fearing something may exist in the future does not mean it does exist now (or ever will).
 
RW wrote... "as I understand it, is the DC Metro was concerned about potential anti-Islam ads which could provoke terrorist attacks"
 
... would you like the link to Webster’s dictionary for the definition of "potential".
 
>> In fact, late in your comment thread when one of your commenters alerted to you of the Muslim ad you said “though I had not read that.”
 
It's not that I have missed reading (researching) an anti-Islam Metro DC ad.  There was NONE to read about (despite what you've latched on to).
 
What I had not read was that they feared an anti-Islam ad (an opinion of the Washington Post) but I suspected and was not surprised that they feared an anti-Islam ad might be submitted. 
 
But... NO... I did not read every jot and title of every article written on this subject (nor have you... on any subject).
 
I'll try again.  READ... before you shoot your mouth off...
 
"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak/Write and Remove All Doubt" -- anonymous.
 
>> You made no mention of any anti-religious ad policy in your post.
 
Because the point of the original post was that (for whatever reason) the fact that one ad was acceptable and one was not says something about the state of society.  That's it.  The reason was immaterial to THAT point; as is the dress code at Metro DC, the color of Metro DC buses... and a host of other things I failed to "research".
 
I have no interest in trying to second guess what detail some demagogue is going to come up with as an excuse to throw a hissy fit.  The post would be long, incomprehensible, and unreadable... and the demagogue would just select a detail you failed to anticipate anyway.
 
Best to let the hissy fit happen and just point it out.
 
Now, like many discussions on WB, tangents to the original point are brought up in comments... and I'm OK with that.  It's a discussion board... The reason... became one of those tangents; one you latched onto (though admittedly with little comprehension) to throw your hissy fit.
 
>> The reason I used the word conspiracy is because you believe those that dictate policy at the DC Metro are anti-Christian, which means the reason for removing the ad is something other than their stated reason.
 
OK, I present to you right here, right now that the reason I wrote this post was because aliens from Pluto beamed it to me.  By your "logic", if you don't accept my reason (despite common sense, despite all evidence otherwise) YOU are engaging in believing a conspiracy exists.
 
OR... could it possibly be that the reason I gave was ... ... ... a lie ... ... possibly even to cover my ass for the real reason.  Is it possible that is what Metro DC did, because according to you, not accepting their reason as gospel is not an option.
 
But, yes; I do assert that, as a general rule, bureaucrats hold leftist views based on such facts as that they overwhelmingly give to the Democratic Party and overwhelmingly identify as left of center.  Based on what I've seen, I do not think Metro DC is an exception to that rule.
 
You, meanwhile, offer no facts or reasoned opinion to counter that assertion... other than to call me a "theorizing right wing nutcase" which is the debate equivalent of throwing poo.  Thus... you fit right in here with other hissy fit throwing poo slingers... speaking/writing... and leaving no doubt.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 26, 2017 - 6:12am
As the author chose to live in an even more bubba area of his state than Dallas or Houston one must ask how adverts in DC mass transport have a deleterious effect on his peace and dignity way out there in chicken plant country. 
 
For the record I find BOTH adverts offensive on a personal level yet believe BOTH should be seen in a truly free nation. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 26, 2017 - 8:36am
Lynn,  when we compare the Bible with Quaran there is a particular lack of symmetry.  If we compared only the Old Testament to the Quaran they would be pretty similar.  However, the Bible has the New Testament also, which differs greatly from the Old in many respects.
 
In my view it is the New Testament that really is fundamental to the religion. Without it, not much Christianity.  Unfortunately Christians sometimes take an Old Testament view of things.  For example Christians often cite the Old Testament when saying the Christianity doesnt tolerate gays.  But this same Old Testament also allowed men to own multiple women as wives and encourages us to kill non-believers.  So we often break with Old Testament ideas when appropriate.  To me the more relevant question about gays, would be what would Jesus have said about the matter, and to my knowledge he doesnt say explicitly, but Him being a tolerant sort  I have my opinion.
 
Yes of course, when we "welcome" Muslims they need to be here legally.   I dont think that we should screen Muslims more than others.  We should screen all people from countries where record keeping is suspect or where terrorists are aplenty, more than others.  After all, just because someone comes from Yemen, and isnt labeled a Muslim, does that mean we let our guard down? Certainly the people that mean us harm are clever enough to hide their religion if that means we will vet them less.
 
I know a fair number of Muslims, several who are naturalized citizens, making productive contributions to the country.  It is silly to say  we should exclude people because of their religion, even if we could determine their religion accurately.  To my knowledge the government doesnt have the right to ask my religion any more than it has the right to ask my sexual orientation.
 
 
TexasLynn Added Dec 27, 2017 - 5:35pm
JG >> Is the author chose to live in an even more bubba area of his state...
 
"bubba"?  Is jeering nigger by another name as satisfying?  Do you get that same warm fuzzy feeling of superiority?  I really am curious?
 
JG >> one must ask how adverts in DC mass transport have a deleterious effect on his peace and dignity way out there in chicken plant country.
 
I'm sorry... I didn't realize we bubbas and hicks "in chicken plant country" were restricted on the topics we may deliberate on.  I've really got to have Autumn to send me a link.  Is this an example of various types of regional restrictions or just an example of those dam bubbas needing to know their place?
 
JG >> For the record I find BOTH adverts offensive on a personal level yet believe BOTH should be seen in a truly free nation.
 
Jeffery, the condescension and arrogance of this comment is disappointing coming from someone who is normally intellectually honest... but a least there is one gem of relevance that I can address.
 
We almost agree here.  Both SHOULD be legal in a truly free nation (yet one isn't by policy).  That said, not all things that are legal should be seen in a healthy/moral nation.
TexasLynn Added Dec 27, 2017 - 5:38pm
BK >> If we compared only the Old Testament to the Quaran they would be pretty similar.
 
You would have to be more specific... having read both; I don't see it.  Is the Old Testament move violent and depict an ancient society and norms (than the New Testament)... yes.
 
To give some perspective, Christians generally view the Old Testament as the story of how God used His chosen people to prepare and pave the way for His Son.  Once Christ was born, died, and resurrected... the old law was nailed to the cross with Him.  This is a very brief and simple description; but it will have to suffice for now.
 
BK >> However, the Bible has the New Testament also, which differs greatly from the Old in many respects.
 
True.  Yet remember that the Quran was written centuries after the New Testament.  The stories of the Old Testament suited Muhammad's narrative better; he only re-imaged Jesus (and I think Mary) from the New Testament to suit the designs of a war lord.
 
BK >> In my view it is the New Testament that really is fundamental to the religion. Without it, not much Christianity. 
 
Of course... the New Testament... the Word... IS Christianity.
 
For Jews... not so much.  They view Christ as (at best) a wise man (at worst) a heretic.
 
BK >> Unfortunately Christians sometimes take an Old Testament view of things. 
 
Agreed... we are not perfect.  We don't even live up to the New Testament principles and teachings of Christ.  But that's a key part of what the gospel tells us... we can't do it; therefore, we need to rely not upon ourselves but Him (Jesus).
 
BK >> For example Christians often cite the Old Testament when saying the Christianity doesnt tolerate gays. 
 
The Old Testament is very valuable and can teach us many things; but the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.  It is the consummation of the Old Testament.... (again... this is a Christian perspective).
 
While some things pass away with the consummation... other universal truths will remain.  Murder is still murder.  Adultery is still adultery.  Homosexuality is still a sin (even in the New Testament).
 
BK >> But this same Old Testament also allowed men to own multiple women as wives and encourages us to kill non-believers.  So we often break with Old Testament ideas when appropriate. 
 
Yes... this stuff happened; the millennia spanning path of preparation was not pretty.  But it was necessary for His plan to be fulfilled (with Christ) so that we may live under a new law.
 
Non-Christians have a lot of difficulty separating the Old and New Testament; and like to hang the Old around our Christian necks.  In some cases, it's fair; in others, it's just ignorance of the faith.  (That’s an observation… not an accusation.)
 
BK >> To me the more relevant question about gays, would be what would Jesus have said about the matter, and to my knowledge he doesn't say explicitly, but Him being a tolerant sort I have my opinion.
 
This is a very good approach in my opinion, not just about homosexuality but about everything.  It does you credit and I hope you continue with this approach but not just imagining/feeling how Jesus dealt with various issues but reading/studying what He said and did.
 
First, let me agree that Jesus did not explicitly address homosexuality (the apostle Paul did).. but lack of explicit address does not equate to endorsement or even tolerance.  Jesus did not explicitly address slavery to which I say he was too busy addressing things much more important (salvation) knowing there would always be some forms of servitude.  Jesus was not interested in dictating an extensive list of sinful behavior (so that everything not on the list is fair game).  With human depravity, the list would be longer than the bible itself.
 
Second, it is my opinion that Jesus wasn't "tolerant" as much as "forgiving".  (google "Jesus money lenders" concerning a good example of his intolerance)
 
I think the relevant scripture concerning homosexuality is the same as that for adultery. (John 8:1-11) This is the account where Jesus tells a group of men ready to stone an adulteress to death that "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".  The men, leave one by one, until she ha
TexasLynn Added Dec 27, 2017 - 5:38pm
I think the relevant scripture concerning homosexuality is the same as that for adultery. (John 8:1-11) This is the account where Jesus tells a group of men ready to stone an adulteress to death that "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".  The men, leave one by one, until she had no more accusers.  The world thinks Jesus then said the equivalent of... "Those guys are a bunch of hypocrites... now go have fun."
 
Jesus in fact asked the women "Where are your accusers?"  (Note: In Jewish law it took two witnesses to establish guilt.)  She replied that there were none.
 
Jesus replied "Then neither do I condemn you.  Go now and leave your life of sin."  Note that he didn't say I tolerate your sin, but rather implored here to leave her sin.  Thus, I submit he practiced forgiveness over tolerance...
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:1-11
 
>> Yes of course, when we "welcome" Muslims they need to be here legally.
 
As should all immigrants.  But the issue is more than that, we also have the right and even the responsibility to administer our immigration with what is best for us in mind.
 
>> I dont think that we should screen Muslims more than others.
 
And here we disagree.  I base this simply on my opinion that Islam is not compatible with freedom or democracy.  I base this on my reading of the Quran and the fruits of Islam today and over the centuries.
 
>> We should screen all people from countries where record keeping is suspect or where terrorists are aplenty, more than others.  After all, just because someone comes from Yemen, and isnt labeled a Muslim, does that mean we let our guard down? Certainly the people that mean us harm are clever enough to hide their religion if that means we will vet them less.
 
Exactly, so the default answer is No.  Now let's see if we find positive evidence that you are indeed interested in assimilating into our culture; if you indeed are compatible with our Constitution.  Without absolute proof of yes on both counts... the answer to your immigration is no.
 
>> I know a fair number of Muslims, several who are naturalized citizens, making productive contributions to the country.
 
I don't deny that fact.  A majority of Muslims are peaceful and productive... as long as they ignore most of what Muhammad taught.  But all it takes is one (out of a hundred, one out of a thousand) to read the Quran and understand what Muhammad was all about. 
 
You never know when that little time-bomb is going to go off (if ever).  You never know if one in the sons of that original peaceful and productive family will decide to delve a little deeper into his heritage/religion.  So long as Islam is there, that seed is there.
 
>> It is silly to say  we should exclude people because of their religion, even if we could determine their religion accurately.
 
Not at all.  No sillier (or less logical) than to say we are going to exclude you because you don't know English, or you lack the skills to support yourself.  In fact, exclusion for ideological grounds is even more important than those.
 
The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that Congress "possesses the plenary power to exclude aliens on whatever ground deems fit."  One of the key tenets of naturalization law requires applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States".  These grounds have been the basis for excluding the likes of communists, fascists and anarchist in the past; all threats to the Constitution and our society.
 
Not every communist or fascist or anarchist posed a threat to our Constitution or society… but we excluded them ALL anyway… and were right to do so.
 
I simply submit that Islam (and particularly the Sharia subset of Islam) does not meet that requirement and is in fact antithetical to our Constitution, and our ideals of freedom and democracy.
 
>> To my knowledge the government doesn't have the right to ask my religion any more than it has the right to ask my sexual orientation.
 
Do we... in this politically correct day and age?  Probably not.
 
But as far as the right (legally) to do so... you would be wrong.
 
Thanks for the comments…
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 28, 2017 - 1:21am
were restricted on the topics we may deliberate on
 
You aren't. Not in my book anyway.
 
Read MY statement again. It wasn't an attempt or opinion to restrict it was merely a question: How is an advert or a lack of an advert in DC destroying your peace and dignity way out in chicken plant country?
 
Don't be all defensive and shy about where you live. Nor should you be shy and defensive about your cammo clothing. Times are difficult, feel good about the fact you can afford a new cammo shirt every year to replace the one you wash every other day whether it needs it or not. Life is good! 
 
TexasLynn Added Dec 31, 2017 - 5:09pm
>> It wasn't an attempt or opinion to restrict it was merely a question:
 
Of course not ... you don't have that authority any more than I do.  Thus, the sarcasm.
 
I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt despite your editorial tangent on bubba land... not to mention the additional crap in the last comment.
 
>> How is an advert or a lack of an advert in DC destroying your peace and dignity…?
 
The advert and lack of advert are indication of a degrading and sick society as a whole.  That degradation eventually affects every corner of the infected society.
 
Another issue is that Yankees who come up with this &@^$ don't stay up north.  Eventually they get cold (and tired of high local taxes) and bring all that &@^$ down south.  Know what I mean?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:23pm
That degradation eventually affects every corner of the infected society.
 
Which came first the kiddie diddling preachers or the adverts? That's a rhetorical question.
 
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2018 - 10:19am
>> Which came first the kiddie diddling preachers or the adverts? That's a rhetorical question.
 
Rhetorical or not... which came first is irrelevant.  Which is most prevalent is.  Whether or not a society address both is.