The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The Trump administration completely ignoring the first amendment has decided to only allow 31 religious that service members may hold.  And it is actually considerably less than that as half of them are flavors of Christianity.

That will last exactly as longas Trump holds office...and probably not that long.

^^^ I don't expect it to survive judicial review even with a trump appointed judges

I am not too worried about this one.

It seems like this has to do with military providing services for certain religions at time of death and certain ones with very low numbers won't be catered to, right?

A big nothing here completely misrepresented in the original post.

And the evangelical right is sitting back saying "That's right, nothing to see here..."

It doesn't say you can't practice your religion, just that Father Mulcahy doesn't haven't to be up to speed on what your religion is.

It says your religion is not recognized by the DOD (US Gov't). And unlike the "official" religions no support needs to be provided. 

Or in the case of Judaism which has four distinct branches which are as different from each other as Catholic is to Baptist now completely inappropriate support will be provided the majority of the time. 

Considering how Muslims are treated in other countries, I'm not surprised.   That being said, any court will rule this unconstitutional.

They had to amend this because the Mormons got mad that LDS wasn't listed as a form of Christianity.

In a vacuum, I don't care about this, but these people aren't acting in good faith and there's a religious war within the right that I don't understand.

Ding-Ding-Ding...we have a winner!

There are certain requirements for Christianity.
God: We believe in one God existing in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus: We affirm that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died as a sacrifice for humanity's sins, rose from the grave, and ascended to heaven. We also believe in His literal return to earth.
Bible: The church holds that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and the sole authority for faith and practice.
Salvation: Salvation is considered a gift received through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. We also believe in the assurance of eternal security for those truly saved.
Baptism: We practice baptism by immersion as an act of obedience after one has accepted salvation.
Church: We believe the church is a local body of baptized believers with Jesus Christ as the head.

Paul said in Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Both Mormons and Islam preach a different gospel of Jesus specifically than Christianity. The Bible refers to different gospels as false gospels and led by false prophets. Christians are starting to call them out for what they are instead of pretending.   

according to you

There is a quite different set of "requirements" from Catholics, and another different set of "requirements" from Seventh-Day Adventists, and a third set of "requirements" from Mormons.  And just like you, all of them claim that THEIR requirements are the real ones.

I don't give one iota of shit about this issue, personally, but you gotta understand that this statement is treating opinion as fact.

There are great debates about religion and what constitutes Christianity.  It most likely should be up to the individual sects to decide what applies, rather than ...you.

Vandalizing the US Capital and assaulting a police officer --- full pardon.

Placing you hand into the algae infested reflecting pond -- arrest and prosecuted for vandalism. 

Not really. We have 13 letters from Paul that discerned church matters. 9 were sent directly to churches  and 4 were sent to his replacements (Timothy and Titus) towards the end of his life. Many of those churches were doing the same things they are doing today during the first century. Many who called themselves Apostles taught contrary to the Disciples. Paul called them out and corrected them just like he did Peter when he had bowed to pressure. Paul corrected the church by emphasizing that Christ ... not human leaders, pedigree, or personal wisdom .... is the absolute center. He corrected their disunity by defining the church as the unified body of Christ, where every member is valuable, but strongly condemned the idea that Christ's redeeming work required any human works or adherence to the Law. The Apostles Peter and John, as well as Jesus' brothers James and Jude also wrote some letters that we have copies of. None contradict each other.

Now we do have different denominations because people can't agree on how to baptize, how to celebrate the Lord's Supper, predestination, and other silly things but nothing that contradicts what is clearly taught as doctrine.

Any time the Bible is referenced, it is a work of fiction. You may as well quote a Stephen King book.

Any time you (or anyone else) says "It's God's Will." It's actually "your" will, and yours alone, unless you convince others of your delusion, and then you band together and form a church (cult).


Can I get an amen?

And ICE murders another. 

Just like with Renee Nicole Good... If you drive your car towards a law enforcement officer in a threatening manner, you are going to get shot.

If any of these ICE agents actually feared for their lives than they don't belong in law enforcement.  (And most ICE agents wouldn't pass the requirements of to attend a police academy)

The best way to stop a car is to shoot the tire not the driver. 

So you basically aren't holding the driver accountable for attempting to injure or maim a law enforcement officer.   The problem is, people act like they are entitled and that their rights make them untouchable.  That's clearly not the case.   If you're detained, you're detained and you need to let the investigation play out.   If you're told to leave by law enforcement, leave without making a scene.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm describing.   This girl, at worst, would've gotten busted for shoplifting and likely gotten no jail time.   Instead, she fired the cop's gun and ended up getting 40 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7289ADXg8ns&t=267s

In a development that surprises no one, the same people who insist the 2nd Amendment exists specifically to enable violent armed rebellion against the government are now saying the appropriate way to interact with law enforcement is COMPLY OR DIE: every offense is a capital offense.

The second amendment exists so that if the government becomes tyrannical and attempts to remove our first amendment rights/declaration of independence rights, citizens can defend themselves

That is exactly what I just said: violent armed rebellion against the government, whenever YOU think it's "justified."

But this is in obvious conflict with your other comply or die position... not that I think you sincerely believe in such talk (it's just an excuse for the killing of people you don't consider worthwhile).  Because if you did sincerely believe in that, then you should also believe that all the Jan 6ers pardoned by Trump should have been killed at the Capitol.

Again, you're assuming shit about someone you don't know at all.  It's not about "comply or die".  It's about doing something to make the officer think you're threatening their life.  Refusing to comply and ending up being taken in for obstruction/resisting arrest is stupid but it's way better than being shot to death because you drove your vehicle at an officer in a threatening manner and made them think their life was in danger.

They aren't even claiming that the "officer was in jeopardy" in Maine.
DHS is claiming (https://apnews.com/article/ice-shooting-maine-immigration-dhs-f26f8c2256aa6f0748582ea4adbb515c) they shot him because the officer was "fearing for public safety."

comply or die

I wasn't referring to Maine.   I'm talking about Texas.   The guy literally rammed his vehicle into an ICE vehicle with ICE officers inside it.

Hoodie's post was after ICE killed a man in Maine, and (apparently without looking into what he was talking about?) your immediate reflex was to defend yet another ICE homicide:


But let's not beat around the bush.  Are you condemning ICE for executing a legal resident in Maine?

I was unaware of the situation in Maine and thought he was referring to Texas.   

I'm a reasonable guy and I gotta say, the Maine incident was messed up for two reasons:

1.  The guy who was shot wasn't the guy they were looking for.

2.   He was speeding away in his vehicle and not driving at anyone.   If police officers wanted to detain him, they should've pursued him and either tried to pit him or roll spikes out on the road to shred his tires, not shoot at him.

Not according to all of the witnesses other than the ICE agents. 

No photos of a damaged ICE vehicle pair with a crushed front end.

Of course, we could know the truth if the ICE agents used the taxpayer purchased body cams.     

So how do you feel about the ICE killing of (US citizen) Alex Pretti, who was shot multiple times in the back (https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cg4e0r1el5yo) for carrying a holstered handgun?

It appears to me all the other cases I have seen have been justified. From what I've seen regarding the guy in Maine has a history of violence. That doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty. As we have seen in several cases, until the facts come out we really have no idea what happened and are all prejudiced towards whatever view we previously held of ICE.

He supposedly attempted to unholster the handgun.   Like I said earlier, if you are exhibiting behaviors that can threaten the life of an LEO, you are going to get shot.

Stop bootlicking.

He didn't. It's on video. 

Where's the trial?  Where's the open investigation?

Police can just kill you and say some bullshit and we just are supposed to believe that?

The link I provided shows several video angles of multiple ICE agents holding him down while one takes the holstered weapon out of his waistband, then another agent immediately shoots him in the back multiple times.  His hands are on the ground the whole time.

comply or die

In this case it was comply AND die.