Conservatives spend a lot of time talking principles, but not as much time as they should telling people what they want to do for the average American. On the other hand, liberals talk incessantly about what conservatives want to do “to” the average American, but almost all of it is wrong. Here’s what conservatives actually want for Americans.
1) A country where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, but isn’t dragged down by an insistence on equal results.
2) A safe neighborhood where you can let your kids go out and play in the front yard without having to worry about them being shot, kidnapped or coerced by gang members.
3) A country as free as possible of illegal aliens who commit crimes, use taxpayer services without paying, take jobs that should go to citizens and drive down wages for Americans.
4) An environment with clean air, clean water and clean soil.
5) The right to worship the God you believe in as you please, without interference from the state, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
6) An environment where Americans can reap rewards as large as the market is willing to pay for their particular talents, work ethic or unique skills.
7) The dignity of supporting yourself with a job, free of dependence on the government.
8) A government that will stay out of your way and allow you to reach your full potential free of interference.
9) The freedom to live as you please and do as you please with your property without interference from the government.
10) The ability of parents to be able to send their children to a school, public or private, that best fits their needs.
11) The protection of the world’s foremost military and a government that is willing to use it to insure the safety of American citizens.
12) Medicare and Social Security programs that are financially solvent long-term so they can continue to benefit retirees.
13) The freedom for people to speak their minds without being censored by the government.
14) A decent culture so that children have a chance to grow up without being morally corrupted.
15) A responsible government that keeps order in the streets, protects Americans from crimes, and enforces basic regulations to keep people from being taken advantage of by crooks or unscrupulous businesses.
16) The ability for women to achieve their fullest potential, whether that’s by being a corporate CEO, opening their own business or staying at home as a full time mom.
17) A country where people are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
18) Low taxes, so that Americans get to keep more of their hard earned money instead of sending it to the government.
19) A country where everyone from the President of the United to States to the humblest citizen has to obey the same laws or face the same potential penalties for breaking those laws.
20) A fiscally responsible government that takes great care to wisely spend the tax dollars it collects.
HOMOSEXUALITYMon Mar 9, 2015 - 4:15 pm EST
State senator’s family receives death threats after promoting religious freedom from gay ‘marriage’
OKLAHOMA, OK, March 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – He introduced a bill that said homosexual activists needed to live and let live. Their reaction – threatening to kill his children – proves his point, he says.
Homosexual activists have sent bullying and intimidating messages – including threats of violence – to Oklahoma State Sen. Joseph Silk, R-Broken Bow, after he sponsored a bill that would have said business owners were free to follow their religious convictions.
The bill became necessary following a string of cases in states such as Washington and New Mexico, in which Christian proprietors have been sued for refusing to take part in gay “weddings.”
After seeing the potentially devastating consequences awaiting those who refused to affirm the homosexual lifestyle, he decided, “We need to get legislation on the books before that becomes an issue” in his own state. Sen. Silk spoke with Bryan Fischer of the AFR Talk Radio Network this afternoon.
Although his bill never got a hearing before a state legislative committee, the New York Times featured Sen. Silk in an article about religious freedom – and a partial quotation went viral throughout the LGBT blogosphere.
Homosexuals “don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” he said. But he told Fischer the Times abridged his remarks to make him look bad. He continued, “I don't believe I have the right to be served in every store.”
Owners, he said, have the right to deny services to disruptive people, individuals who violate their shop's standards, and most certainly those whose service would require them to violate their conscience.
Homosexual extremists, he said, promptly disagreed. “They want their behavior condoned, and they want their behavior accepted,” he said.
“Over the past three days, I have received literally hundreds of e-mails and death threats and phone calls,” Sen. Silk told Fischer. “It has been absolutely crazy.”
That includes “death threats to my children now, saying that they need to go to Hell.”
“And what's frustrating is the church has relatively remained silent,” he said. “There is a tremendous amount of spiritual warfare going on with this particular case.”
He warned that what begins in business will soon spread through all of society. “The LGBT movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” he told theTimes.
Today, he doubled down on that assertion. “The LGBT activists do not want people to have freedom. They do not want people to be able to exercise their religious convictions.”
“This is about freedom. This is about religious liberty,” Sen. Silk said. “Very soon the church won't have the right, according to the government, to preach that homosexuality is wrong. That's where this road is going. That's why this is so important.”
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
He said if his bill remains effectively dead for for the rest of this legislative session, he will “absolutely” introduce similar legislation next year.
Contact:
Senator Joseph Silk
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 536
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405.521.5614
silk@oksenate.gov
Executive Assistant: Sherry Mitchell
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 536
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405.521.5614
silk@oksenate.gov
Executive Assistant: Sherry Mitchell
| El P. Guerra publica «¿Por qué hay tantas religiones?» | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
«En Charlie Hebdo chocaron dos fundamentalismos: el yihadista y el laicista masónico» | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
El sacerdote español Manuel Guerra, un experto en masonería, sectas y nuevos movimientos religiosos, condena los atentados yihadistas de París, pero advierte de que el laicismo en Occidente quiere someter a “arresto domiciliario” la vivencia religiosa pública.
-Acaba de publicar el libro digital «¿Por qué hay tantas religiones?» (Digital Reasons) donde analiza el sentido religioso del ser humano plasmado a lo largo de la historia. ¿Cree usted que es factor constitutivo de la naturaleza humana, de nuestra exigencia de significado? -A mi juicio el mayor filósofo en lengua española en el siglo XX fue Javier Zubiri. Él dijo: "El hombre notiene, sino que velis nolis, quieras o no, esreligación” respecto de lo divino, o sea, la religión. Lo que uno tiene, por ejemplo un bolígrafo, la cartera, lo puede perder. Lo que uno es, lo es mientras es o existe. Por eso el hombre o adora a Dios o venera a un ídolo de oro, plata o simplemente imaginario (F. Dostoiesvski). -Se achaca a las religiones, en ocasiones, que han servido para enfrentar a las personas en vez hermanarlas. ¿Esto sería religión o ideología? -En general, a veces incitan a la violencia no las religiones, sino sus miembros. Por ejemplo, los llamados “pecados históricos” de la Iglesia (guerras de religión, intentos –inquisitoriales o no- de imponer la fe por la fuerza, etc.,) han existido no por la naturaleza del cristianismo o de la Iglesia, sino porque los cristianos o los católicos no han sido lo suficientemente cristianos para vivir en coherencia con su fe en un Dios que es Amor (Jn 4, 8,16), que, encarnado, nos mandó amar a todos, también a los enemigos, y Él mismo se dejó crucificar en vez de eliminar a sus enemigos. »Es cierto que alguna religión, por sus circunstancias históricas, tiene en sí misma gérmenes de violencia al ofrecer a los infieles, a los no musulmanes, la necesidad de elegir entre su conversión al Islam o la muerte; a los infieles de libro (judíos, cristianos, zoroástricos) o una tercera posibilidad, a saber, abonar un impuesto económico por no ser musulmanes. Por su parte, ideologías paganas (nazismo) y ateas (comunismo) han causado un número muchísimo mayor de muertosviolentamente ya en el siglo XX. -Con relación a los asesinatos en la revista francesa Charlie Hebdo, Cameron y otros atacaron al Papa porque dijo que daría un puñetazo a quienes insultaran a su madre. ¿Qué opina?-La revista Charlie Hebdo es un semanario laicista (hebdómada es “semana” en latín). Uno de los supervivientes ha manifestado que varios de los asesinados eran masones Por eso, pienso: a) que no se puede matar a nadie por sus ideas. b) que, según se ha dicho, ha habido colisión entre dos clases de libertad, a saber, la libertad religiosa y la libertad de expresión. Pero hay que profundizar más. c) En realidad, esos asesinatos han sido provocados por el enfrentamiento entre dos tipos de fundamentalismo, a saber, el yihadista islámico y el laicista masónico. »El laicismo de origen e impronta masónica sostiene que debe aceptarse por todos lo común a todas las religiones y, por ello, tiene derecho a ocupar los espacios públicos (calles, colegios, universidades, hospitales, parlamentos, etc.), mientras que condena a una especie de arresto domiciliario en el foro interior de la conciencia individual y dentro de los templos a lo específico (símbolos, creencias, normativa ético-moral) de cada religión de las existentes actualmente. »Por eso, “Charlie Hebdo” ridiculiza blasfema y groseramente a todas las religiones concretas, también al islam, pero sobre todo a la cristiana. Pero, aunque se blasfeme, no puede existir el derecho a blasfemar, o sea a injuriar gravemente a Dios y a los creyentes, como, aunque se asesine, no puede haber el derecho a asesinar. -En España, distintos grupos han arremetido últimamente al conocerse los contenidos de la clase de religión, como la creación del mundo por Dios, al considerarlos trasnochados. ¿A qué cree que obedece este intento de censura?-Evidentemente el laicismo se opone a que haya clase de religión. Propugna la escuela pública, laica (o sea, laicista) y, a veces añaden como ideal, “única”. Pero la educación de los hijos, sobre todo si son menores de edad, compete a sus padres, que tienen derecho a educarles en centros de un ideario conforme a sus creencias o increencias. »Además, conviene distinguir entre la “catequesis” que se da fuera de la escuela (en la familia, en la parroquia, etc.,) y la “clase de religión” que se imparte en la escuela, colegios y universidad. La clase de religión debe servir, al menos, para poder entender la cultura (obras literarias, pictóricas, tectónicas, etc.,), que, en los países occidentales ha sido cristiana en los dos últimos milenios. »En cuanto al origen del universo, de la vida y del hombre está superado el “creacionismo”, o sea, la interpretación literalísima de los primeros capítulos del Génesis bíblico (afirmada por bastantes grupos protestantes), no su “creación” por Dios (doctrina de la Iglesia católica). »Además, más de una vez me ha producido sonrojo y hasta sonrisa ver la obstinación de algunos cientificistas empeñados en negar la creación mientras afirman las explicaciones de las mitologías orientales (hindúes, budistas, jainistas), a saber, los ciclos cósmicos, la reencarnación de las almas, etc. Y conste que, en contra de lo pensado por bastantes, la creación es compaginable con la evolución, pues la nada ni es ni evoluciona.¿Cómo se produjo lo que al acaecer el Big Bang primordial causó el despliegue en el origen del espacio y del tiempo? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Imprimir
Corregir
Enviar
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario