(02-07-2012 10:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 11:41 PM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  And we're supposed to have in this country a separation of church and State,

And yet the federal government if forcing a church to directly fund something against the tenets of their faith. This is not taxing catholics and giving the money to planned parenthood... No this is government with the force of law telling the church *F* you're religious liberty we want this so you will do this.

Solution: Strip the "church" of its "non-profit, tax-exempt" status and treat it like the corporation that it is and make it subject to ALL of the laws: taxes, pedophilia, etc.

(02-07-2012 10:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:28 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:21 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Believing conservative evangelicals shouldn't be allowed to vote DOES label you as a LIBERAL. You labeled yourself.

Where do you see me referring to "conservative evangelicals" in my post?

Maybe I read it incorrectly when you referred to "conservative" politicians continue to inject religion into the political discussion to distract from the issues and appeal to a part of the electorate that in reality should not have the right to vote."

Who were you referring to?

The stupid.

Just the generally stupid or the conservative Christian? The two aren't interchangeable.

Though I would agree that people should have a basic understanding of government and how policy impacts them before they vote. Voting for someone simply because they're brown is as bad as voting for someone simply because they're white.

T-H-E S-T-U-P-I-D. (Do you need me to slow it down some more?)

Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

(02-07-2012 10:37 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:28 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:21 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  Where do you see me referring to "conservative evangelicals" in my post?

Maybe I read it incorrectly when you referred to "conservative" politicians continue to inject religion into the political discussion to distract from the issues and appeal to a part of the electorate that in reality should not have the right to vote."

Who were you referring to?

The stupid.

Just the generally stupid or the conservative Christian? The two aren't interchangeable.

Though I would agree that people should have a basic understanding of government and how policy impacts them before they vote. Voting for someone simply because they're brown is as bad as voting for someone simply because they're white.

T-H-E S-T-U-P-I-D. (Do you need me to slow it down some more?)

When you mention "conservative" and "religion" in the comment it implies exactly what I said it does. No need to be a dbag. Just be a little more clear.

(02-07-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:37 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:28 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Maybe I read it incorrectly when you referred to "conservative" politicians continue to inject religion into the political discussion to distract from the issues and appeal to a part of the electorate that in reality should not have the right to vote."

Who were you referring to?

The stupid.

Just the generally stupid or the conservative Christian? The two aren't interchangeable.

Though I would agree that people should have a basic understanding of government and how policy impacts them before they vote. Voting for someone simply because they're brown is as bad as voting for someone simply because they're white.

T-H-E S-T-U-P-I-D. (Do you need me to slow it down some more?)

When you mention "conservative" and "religion" in the comment it implies exactly what I said it does. No need to be a dbag. Just be a little more clear.

Wrong. YOU inferred.

(02-07-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

Unless its a religious hospital.

(02-07-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

Religion was also the driving force to end slavery but why let facts get in your way.

(02-07-2012 10:36 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  Solution: Strip the "church" of its "non-profit, tax-exempt" status and treat it like the corporation that it is and make it subject to ALL of the laws: taxes, pedophilia, etc.

Taxes: Sure, right after you do it to every other non profit charity.

Thank you for all but admitting you don't give a squat about meaningful freedom of religion. Church's are already subject to laws on pedophilia, just like public schools. Yet in both cases men sometimes cover a crime.

Can I take your statement that 'all laws' should include forcing churches to give birth control as part of obama care?

(02-07-2012 10:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

Religion was also the driving force to end slavery but why let facts get in your way.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

(02-07-2012 10:41 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:37 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:28 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  The stupid.

Just the generally stupid or the conservative Christian? The two aren't interchangeable.

Though I would agree that people should have a basic understanding of government and how policy impacts them before they vote. Voting for someone simply because they're brown is as bad as voting for someone simply because they're white.

T-H-E S-T-U-P-I-D. (Do you need me to slow it down some more?)

When you mention "conservative" and "religion" in the comment it implies exactly what I said it does. No need to be a dbag. Just be a little more clear.

Wrong. YOU inferred.

Agree to disagree...

(02-07-2012 10:48 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

Religion was also the driving force to end slavery but why let facts get in your way.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

The first American movement to abolish slavery came in April 1688 when German and Dutch Quakers of Mennonite descent in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) wrote a two-page condemnation of the practice and sent it to the governing bodies of their Quaker church, the Society of Friends. Though the Quaker establishment took no immediate action, the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, was an unusually early, clear and forceful argument against slavery and initiated the process that finally led to the banning of slavery in the Society of Friends (1776) and in the state of Pennsylvania (1780).

(02-07-2012 10:49 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:41 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:37 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Just the generally stupid or the conservative Christian? The two aren't interchangeable.

Though I would agree that people should have a basic understanding of government and how policy impacts them before they vote. Voting for someone simply because they're brown is as bad as voting for someone simply because they're white.

T-H-E S-T-U-P-I-D. (Do you need me to slow it down some more?)

When you mention "conservative" and "religion" in the comment it implies exactly what I said it does. No need to be a dbag. Just be a little more clear.

Wrong. YOU inferred.

Agree to disagree...

(02-07-2012 10:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:48 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

Religion was also the driving force to end slavery but why let facts get in your way.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

The first American movement to abolish slavery came in April 1688 when German and Dutch Quakers of Mennonite descent in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) wrote a two-page condemnation of the practice and sent it to the governing bodies of their Quaker church, the Society of Friends. Though the Quaker establishment took no immediate action, the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, was an unusually early, clear and forceful argument against slavery and initiated the process that finally led to the banning of slavery in the Society of Friends (1776) and in the state of Pennsylvania (1780).

Wait, are you suggesting that both sides of an issue used religion to justify their point of view? That there could be differing interpretations of what God wants? That, in retrospect, those using the Bible as a shield for what we now see as inexcusable behavior and civil rights abuses were wrong? Is it the Bible that is so changeable, or is it modern civilization advancing?

(02-07-2012 10:53 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:48 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Too bad. Anybody can claim religious beliefs to back up any absurdity they want. Religion was the primary shield and excuse during segregation. Loony tune mythology shouldn't be a determining factor in what health care services are offered at a hospital.

Religion was also the driving force to end slavery but why let facts get in your way.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

The first American movement to abolish slavery came in April 1688 when German and Dutch Quakers of Mennonite descent in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) wrote a two-page condemnation of the practice and sent it to the governing bodies of their Quaker church, the Society of Friends. Though the Quaker establishment took no immediate action, the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, was an unusually early, clear and forceful argument against slavery and initiated the process that finally led to the banning of slavery in the Society of Friends (1776) and in the state of Pennsylvania (1780).

Wait, are you suggesting that both sides of an issue used religion to justify their point of view? That there could be differing interpretations of what God wants? That, in retrospect, those using the Bible as a shield for what we now see as inexcusable behavior and civil rights abuses were wrong? Is it the Bible that is so changeable, or is it modern civilization advancing?

The same happened with atheist government using gulags and committing mass murder to 'better society'.

I have always maintained that *people*, and not their beliefs or philosophy, are the problem. For some reason leftist moonbats believe all people are good but corrupted by beliefs.

The Bible is not changeable, and I could easily tear apart what Davis said. First and foremost the Biblical understanding of slavery was *nothing* like what was practiced in the united states. The concept of generational slavery and lifetime slavery did not exist in the Hebrew State, even among those they captured in war.

The provisions to which Davis referenced, I would guess, are those very laws regarding the treatment of slaves. e.g. God sanctioned Jubilee so therefore he was ok with slavery.

This clearly is of the same need and nature that divorce law served in the Hebrew state

Quote:And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

so those laws were created not as a thumbs up, but as a 'if you're going to do this..

None of this nullifies my point that it was the Quakers who started the fight against slavery in the United States.

Any Man, of any system, is a fallen sinful creature with the potential to, at best, be a half way decent human being with serious flaws. At worst any man can be a monster and will use whatever he can to excuse it.

(02-07-2012 11:05 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I have always maintained that *people*, and not their beliefs or philosophy, are the problem. For some reason leftist moonbats believe all people are good but corrupted by beliefs.

How can you separate people from their beliefs or philosophy? That informs and motivates their behavior. You can tear apart what Davis said, sure. And the South was filled with preachers and Biblical "experts" who would back him up.

Anything in the Bible is susceptible to differing interpretation. Slavery is a perfect example: you have folks who stridently believed the Bible supported their position on either side of the issue.

Ultimately it all comes down to an individual's interpratation of the Bible. One need only look at politics today to see that folks on either side of the political equation use their interpretation of the Bible to back up their position. It's the ultimate rorchsach test. You can glean from it what you want to glean from it.

Sorry, but bronze age folklore from thousands of years ago, that nobody has ever been able to agree on its meaning even to this day, shouldn't be used as a determining factor for what health care hospitals provide, period. The less influence it has on our society as a whole, the better off we will all be.

(02-07-2012 11:25 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 11:05 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I have always maintained that *people*, and not their beliefs or philosophy, are the problem. For some reason leftist moonbats believe all people are good but corrupted by beliefs.

How can you separate people from their beliefs or philosophy? That informs and motivates their behavior. You can tear apart what Davis said, sure. And the South was filled with preachers and Biblical "experts" who would back him up.

Anything in the Bible is susceptible to differing interpretation. Slavery is a perfect example: you have folks who stridently believed the Bible supported their position on either side of the issue.

Ultimately it all comes down to an individual's interpratation of the Bible. One need only look at politics today to see that folks on either side of the political equation use their interpretation of the Bible to back up their position. It's the ultimate rorchsach test. You can glean from it what you want to glean from it.

Sorry, but bronze age folklore from thousands of years ago, that nobody has ever been able to agree on its meaning even to this day, shouldn't be used as a determining factor for what health care hospitals provide, period. The less influence it has on our society as a whole, the better off we will all be.

I love hearing from Liberals what should be important to me. Oh, and if the religious hospitals close we'll have a real medical crisis on our hands.

Quote:How can you separate people from their beliefs or philosophy? That informs and motivates their behavior.

Because *any* type of horrid behavior can, and has been performed by people of different, or no faith.

Quote:You can tear apart what Davis said, sure. And the South was filled with preachers and Biblical "experts" who would back him up.

You can legitimately call my argument a case of no true Scotsman but that does not change the fact that the same practice (different people reading the same philosophy/faith) can draw hugely different conclusions. No matter what the philosophy.

Quote:Anything in the Bible is susceptible to differing interpretation.

As is anything in the marxist writings which can lead on one side to democratic socialist government that respects rights and on the other can lead to soviet style communism.

You had a point somewhere?

Quote:Slavery is a perfect example: you have folks who stridently believed the Bible supported their position on either side of the issue.

Again... other than picking on Christians for something that every philosophy or faith on earth has done do you have a point?

Quote:Ultimately it all comes down to an individual's interpratation of the Bible.

Again... other than picking on Christians for something that every philosophy or faith on earth has done do you have a point?

Quote:One need only look at politics today to see that folks on either side of the political equation use their interpretation of the Bible to back up their position.

Again... other than picking on Christians for something that every philosophy or faith on earth has done do you have a point?

Quote:It's the ultimate rorchsach test. You can glean from it what you want to glean from it.

Again... other than picking on Christians for something that every philosophy or faith on earth has done do you have a point?

Quote:Sorry, but bronze age folklore from thousands of years ago, that nobody has ever been able to agree on its meaning even to this day, shouldn't be used as a determining factor for what health care hospitals provide, period. The less influence it has on our society as a whole, the better off we will all be.

But that's not up to you, it should be up to those hospitals and those folks who fund them and follow "bronze age folklore"

If you're not a person of faith then no religious hospital should treat you. So when an ambulance picks you up just tell them you want the state sponsored care...good luck with that.

(02-07-2012 11:25 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 11:05 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I have always maintained that *people*, and not their beliefs or philosophy, are the problem. For some reason leftist moonbats believe all people are good but corrupted by beliefs.

How can you separate people from their beliefs or philosophy? That informs and motivates their behavior. You can tear apart what Davis said, sure. And the South was filled with preachers and Biblical "experts" who would back him up.
Anything in the Bible is susceptible to differing interpretation. Slavery is a perfect example: you have folks who stridently believed the Bible supported their position on either side of the issue.
Ultimately it all comes down to an individual's interpratation of the Bible. One need only look at politics today to see that folks on either side of the political equation use their interpretation of the Bible to back up their position. It's the ultimate rorchsach test. You can glean from it what you want to glean from it.
Sorry, but bronze age folklore from thousands of years ago, that nobody has ever been able to agree on its meaning even to this day, shouldn't be used as a determining factor for what health care hospitals provide, period. The less influence it has on our society as a whole, the better off we will all be.

To summarize in one sentence, what you're saying is, "There are many possible interpretations, but only those that agree with me should be allowed."

(02-07-2012 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 11:25 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 11:05 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I have always maintained that *people*, and not their beliefs or philosophy, are the problem. For some reason leftist moonbats believe all people are good but corrupted by beliefs.

How can you separate people from their beliefs or philosophy? That informs and motivates their behavior. You can tear apart what Davis said, sure. And the South was filled with preachers and Biblical "experts" who would back him up.
Anything in the Bible is susceptible to differing interpretation. Slavery is a perfect example: you have folks who stridently believed the Bible supported their position on either side of the issue.
Ultimately it all comes down to an individual's interpratation of the Bible. One need only look at politics today to see that folks on either side of the political equation use their interpretation of the Bible to back up their position. It's the ultimate rorchsach test. You can glean from it what you want to glean from it.
Sorry, but bronze age folklore from thousands of years ago, that nobody has ever been able to agree on its meaning even to this day, shouldn't be used as a determining factor for what health care hospitals provide, period. The less influence it has on our society as a whole, the better off we will all be.

To summarize in one sentence, what you're saying is, "There are many possible interpretations, but only those that agree with me should be allowed."

Nope; it should not be a factor, period. We are beyond the point where we should be looking at ancient superstitions to guide our healthcare decisions.