So can someone show where she said what the headline says?

 

She was bemoaning that they were having to debate a 'gun bill' due to the increase use (I assume) - due to moral decay.

 

She says she would 'rather' be debating about which church to attend (to offset the moral decay).

 

Reporters love (created) drama....

So can someone show where she said what the headline says?

 

She was bemoaning that they were having to debate a 'gun bill' due to the increase use (I assume) - due to moral decay.

 

She says she would 'rather' be debating about which church to attend (to offset the moral decay).

 

Reporters love (created) drama....

 

Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth," she told the committee.

 

This would be he comment that drove the thread.

Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth," she told the committee.

 

This would be he comment that drove the thread.

 

And with that she did not say - lets force everyone into church as a direct statement she was saying if the moral decay (which is a subjective view) is the root reason for this gun bill in front of her then maybe it would be better if the moral decay was addressed instead of a law on conceal/carry.

 

She was trying to point out the core reason (in her view) for the debating a gun bill that she was not thrilled about.

 

The reporter/propagandist decided to spice up the headline. Journalism is so dead it seems now-a-days.

So can someone show where she said what the headline says?

 

She was bemoaning that they were having to debate a 'gun bill' due to the increase use (I assume) - due to moral decay.

 

She says she would 'rather' be debating about which church to attend (to offset the moral decay).

 

Reporters love (created) drama....

 

Was gonna say something similar, but you beat me to it.

I am a practicing Catholic and believe that everyone should go to Church.

 

I also think that there is no time ever where the US government should have the power to force people to do that. Sadly, I would venture to say that many right-winged citizens would argue against a government mandate of say birth control, but would not be opposed to a government mandate of attending a church service. That one of my biggest problems with ultra-conservatives. It is a two way street.

Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday

 

But then she would want a law saying you cannot attend a mosque.

But then she would want a law saying you cannot attend a mosque.

 

Totally incorrect. She was bemoaning the fact that religion is being eroded in this country (and she is right) and even in her comments said "church of their choice". Your attempt at humor was off the mark and totally incorrect. Nice try though...

That's almost as silly as mandatory voting. Who was it recently that said that might not be a bad thing?

 

Well ... not exactly. Voting is a civic duty. Other civic duties have consequences if you don't do them i.e. jury duty and paying taxes. So while some may think this is ridiculous we have a presedence in our own nation for required civic duties.

 

Constitution states you can worship any or no religion.

Apples to kumquats.

 

Voting is a right granted by the government, not a duty assigned by the government.

I don't want to derail the thread, and you are correct voting is more of a responsibility, but it's still not absurd like the connection to this state congreslady's statement.

Bottom line, she didn't say church attendance should be mandatory.

Bottom line, she didn't say church attendance should be mandatory.

 

OK, fair enough. She said they should be having a debate about whether it should be mandatory. Why even bring such a thing up if you're not in support of it? Playing the semantics game is a bit overboard when the intent is completely obvious.

I would much rather elect this guy than the guy dressing up as a maid and getting whipped in some domination thing by a woman.

I would much rather elect this guy than the guy dressing up as a maid and getting whipped in some domination thing by a woman.

 

Am I eligible to vote for this guy??!!

OK, fair enough. She said they should be having a debate about whether it should be mandatory. Why even bring such a thing up if you're not in support of it? Playing the semantics game is a bit overboard when the intent is completely obvious.

 

She actually said "probably". It makes a difference.

 

You don't know her intent, neither do I although I recognize hyperbole when I read it. As to why bringing it up if you're not in support of it, really?? Have you ever listened to legislators debate issues? Sarcasm and hyperbole rule. It's quite humorous when people take them literally, except when it's sad.

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by 75center