Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The US Christian Right Done?  
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17681 posts, RR: 46
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

MD and ME have approved same sex marriage, and MN and WA have turned down bans. Attitudes on social issues are shifting and church attendance is falling. Far right stances on abortion issues have proved disastrous. Whether you agree or not with the Christian right, it's been a long slow decline with no upturn in sight, but it seems that last night was the end, or at least an acceleration into obscurity. Next Presidential election cycle they will have nothing to offer voters unless they change most of their positions. Is the Christian Right done?


E pur si muove -Galileo
157 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1804 times:

I think so. And unless the GOP ditches that image of them (or at least, one of their flanks) quickly, they're going to continually lose elections; the US public is just not on their side. Only 20% of Americans support a total ban on abortion, etc.


Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1805 times:

The Christian Right will still matter in local and congressional elections where they can deliver enough votes to swing who gets into office by effective margins. On the big stage, they've already been marginalized. The Christian Right isn't able to deliver the kind of voting blocks that swung major elections in the Reagan era.

Watch what happens in terms of immigration during the next few years. Catholic Hispanics, a fast-growing demographic, should be attracted to the GOP, as the party's stances on abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, and religious freedom is appealing. But if you snub them in the face on the immigration issue, you're going to lose them to the Democrats.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1807 times:

It's something the GOP just can't give up on.

The bible belt is solid red.

If they give that up, where do they start from?

Here's a map I found, I think it's accurate:



Note that even NC was leaning blue till Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.

If they abandon the bible belt they'll have an even harder road going forward.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3873 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
If they give that up, where do they start from

To actually being the party of small government, which is what they were before they got in bed with the religious right. There's a firm foundation for the Republicans--concede the culture war, and focus on economics. Be in favor of policies that encourage entrepreneurship, small business ownership and development, and economic innovation. That's how they win/create a new base.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8653 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1804 times:

There are still plenty of Republicans who are insane Church-y but just hide it in an effort to appeal to secular Republicans and zealots alike. My fear is that Mitt wasn't religious fundamentalist enough to excite the base in Virginia, Ohio & etc.

Republicans already thought carefully about becoming the open-immigration party. GW Bush already was. They tried it and it didn't (yet) suit the party to favor open immigration. But that is their plan for the future. Flood the country with conservative Christians and use religion (& oil money) to govern the country. Kind of like the Saudi Arabia model, which Bush and others idolize, IMO.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7786 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1805 times:

I am a republican voter, but I guess I'd consider myself more libertarian.
I won't say that you're not allowed to be religious, but in reality, I left the church 2 years ago because I saw so much hypocrisy in religion. For me, and especially for social issues, I believe that these issues must be decided by the states themselves, as we saw last night. Church attendance is indeed falling, because the church itself fails to see that it is 2012. Right wingers need to know that We do have to move on somehow if we are going to be a prosperous and rich nation.

In terms of abortion though, I will always be pro-life. I was adopted and my birthmom chose adoption over abortion because she knew I had a better chance at being successful with adoptive parents. If more resources were given to adoption agencies, that would make me happier. Also who gives a damn about gays and raising kids? They're perfectly capable of raising children the same way MY parents did with me. And look at me now, successful student in the process of moving to Japan.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8346 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1805 times:

I live in the Bible Belt and I see no chance that there will be a change here. Look at the various states stuck in this mindset. Oklahoma delivered a 66-33 "victory" to Romney. How far out were the rest of the Bible Belt states.

The problem for the GOP is that they can't afford to upset this group, just like they cannot afford to upset the conservatives in southern states who are still mad about the Civil Rights Law that LBJ signed.

The really queer bit about the Holy Rollers in the "Christian Right" is that they act against what normal people would consider Christian values in areas like "I was hungry" and "I was sick". Do you really believe that these "Christians' are willing to see improvements in feeding the poor or caring for the sick? Like hell they are.

The Christian Right isn't done, especially at the state level. And, like the Tea Party, the GOP will be missing the courage to straighten them out.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6):
I won't say that you're not allowed to be religious, but in reality, I left the church 2 years ago because I saw so much hypocrisy in religion.

   It's the reason I don't attend any church/temple/mosque. Although baptised and attended church as a child, I've likely been to the synagogue more than church in my life. particularly with Christian faiths, I see so much hypocrisy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The problem for the GOP is that they can't afford to upset this group, just like they cannot afford to upset the conservatives in southern states who are still mad about the Civil Rights Law that LBJ signed.

The really queer bit about the Holy Rollers in the "Christian Right" is that they act against what normal people would consider Christian values in areas like "I was hungry" and "I was sick". Do you really believe that these "Christians' are willing to see improvements in feeding the poor or caring for the sick? Like hell they are.


Again, agree. Also, look at types like Joel Osteen (?) - he's become, so it would seem, fabulously wealthy by being a "Christian". Even a cursory reading of the Bible indicates that if you are a Christian, your world view is that "it's all about them", not "it's all about me".



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4125 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
If they abandon the bible belt they'll have an even harder road going forward.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The problem for the GOP is that they can't afford to upset this group, just like they cannot afford to upset the conservatives in southern states who are still mad about the Civil Rights Law that LBJ signed.

That may be true but if the GOP keeps going the way they do, they will become the "Party of Angry White Men." Polling shows how much gains the Democrats are making with young voters and minorities (esp Hispanics). The GOP needs to also realize that the country is in the midst of change in values and views. A majority of young voters support progressive causes and many of them may probably remain as Democratic voters as they get older. I think of myself; I've voted in 4 Presidential elections since I was 18 and I've voted for the Democrat (president).

For many people who aren't white, the GOP in recent years have seem to become more and more hostile largely in their move to go even more rightward, and it scares them.

What the GOP needs to do is get the tea party types to bug off and pander less to the Bible Belt. Granted I live in a Blue State but really they will be less and less important as that base ages and goes away.

just my 2 cents...



"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4390 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6):

In terms of abortion though, I will always be pro-life. I was adopted and my birthmom chose adoption over abortion because she knew I had a better chance at being successful with adoptive parents. If more resources were given to adoption agencies, that would make me happier. Also who gives a damn about gays and raising kids? They're perfectly capable of raising children the same way MY parents did with me.

Completely agree. My background is pretty much identical, and it's been kind of a hard issue for me but i've become pragmatically pro-life. The thing that always pisses me off the most is thinking of the millions, probably billions of dollars of political donations from pro-life and pro-choice groups the past 40 years and what an incredible waste it has been. Think of all the young mothers in need who could've been tangibly helped instead of bloated war chests filling our tvs with ridiculous attack ads. And think of it, overturning RvW is probably the greatest realistic victory for them, and that would merely return things to the states. It would ultimately reduce abortions, but not nearly by the amount they'd expect you to believe. State lines would be crossed, or done in a shady manner.

The jurys out. Stare decisis. I only wish people would realize they could actually make a difference now instead of this seemingly eternal political gamesmanship. Not to mention the views of many that adoption to be limited to their idea biblical ideas of 'family'. The world just doesn't work that way. Complete idealism. Conservatives like to talk about how the government shouldn't be relied on to effectively fix problems, well great example!



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
I live in the Bible Belt and I see no chance that there will be a change here.

Nobody's saying the views will change there, but their impact on national issues is pretty much done.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The problem for the GOP is that they can't afford to upset this group,

The problem is the GOP has upset pretty much everyone else. Not too long ago, there was a VERY large group of middle-class people whose values and viewpoints were similar, if not coincided, with the current-day "Christian Right". With the advent of the internet and an increase in communication, urbanization, and social support, that group has increasingly distanced themselves from those values.

The GOP in this election cycle chose to keep appealing to the Christian Right, in hopes that they could do what they've always done and bully and pressure people into not "destroying the fabric of this country". It didn't work out so well, and now with the Christian Right having thrown their hands up and said that over half this country is stupid an this is no longer the America it used to be, the rest of us will continue on while they slowly die out.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 8):
Again, agree. Also, look at types like Joel Osteen (?) - he's become, so it would seem, fabulously wealthy by being a "Christian". Even a cursory reading of the Bible indicates that if you are a Christian, your world view is that "it's all about them", not "it's all about me".

There are two different viewpoints of Christianity. The one that the Religious Right tends to take is that if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you are absolved of all your sins and you will go to heaven. You can be a murderer or an adulterer but if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you will go to heaven. The only exception, I suppose, is homosexuality. That apparently bars you from heaven unless you become "ex-gay" or whatever you want to call it.

From Wikipedia's article on Ann Coulter:

Quote:
Coulter says that she holds Christian beliefs, but has not declared her membership in any particular denomination – she has mentioned that her father was Catholic while her mother was not. At one public lecture she said, "I don't care about anything else; Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters." She summarized her view of Christianity in a 2004 column, saying, "Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day, because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it." She then mocked "the message of Jesus ... according to liberals," summarizing it as "...something along the lines of 'be nice to people,'" which, in turn, she said "is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity."

I find this to be a ghastly theology that frankly borders on sociopathy. The idea that you are superior to others solely because of your religious beliefs and that your behavior towards others is incidental at best. A sense of inherent superiority is what binds just about every despot tyrant together.

As the Religious Right has been faced with a world that is more and more diverse, in which other forms of faith expression have become more and more important, they have reacted as religious fundamentalists tend to do: by becoming more extreme, more condemnatory of others, and more insular. It is ultimately not an issue of religion, but of psychology.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The problem for the GOP is that they can't afford to upset this group, just like they cannot afford to upset the conservatives in southern states who are still mad about the Civil Rights Law that LBJ signed.

And this winds up being an increasingly large problem for them because they can't afford to keep pandering to this group, either. A younger generation is being brought up and they are increasingly ecumenical or religiously unaffiliated. The U.S. population is also becoming increasingly urban and suburban, meaning that today's young people are being raised in an environment of diversity. In twenty years' time, a good portion of their White Evangelical base will be dead. A younger generation will be less interested in (and indeed turned off by) staunch opposition to gay rights, contraception, and abortion and more interested in actual fiscal and political policy.

If the GOP turns its back on this older demographic, they will lose some votes from them, yes... but it's not as if the DNC will gain those votes. The GOP needs to go back to what they were in the 1970's and 1980's, a party focused on fiscal responsibility (which they weren't during the '80's, admittedly), reduced government regulation on businesses, and reduced government interference in private behavior. It wasn't until 1989 that the Christian Coalition inserted itself firmly into GOP policy.

But if they continue on the current course, they will become increasingly irrelevant on a national level and if that is the case, they will become increasingly irrelevant on a state level as a result. If they take a new direction and abandon the RR, they will suffer in the short term, yes, but they will prosper in the long-term.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6):
In terms of abortion though, I will always be pro-life. I was adopted and my birthmom chose adoption over abortion because she knew I had a better chance at being successful with adoptive parents

That is the problem with liberals - they always consider themselves at the fore-front of every issue, whether they are or not, to the point they like to think of themselves as progressives (which is ironic, because if they lived on the early 20th century they would be protesting Henry Ford for threatening the livelihood of all those organic, local, free-range buggy-whip manufacturing small business co-ops). The situation has become so ridiculous they consider "progress" when women are able to indiscriminately kill unborn babies just so they don't have to live with the consequences of their own decisions (a liberal dogma).

Oh, and before the attacks start - I am far from being religious. In fact, I am a true atheist - as in, I know for a fact all religions are wrong and treat all religious demonstrations accordingly - , not the garden-variety liberal atheist, as in, an oikophobe that will go out of their own way to justify any religious behavior no matter how barbaric it is just as long as it is not perpetrated by a Christian (or, as the incredibly bigoted attacks over the past months show, a Mormon).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Oklahoma delivered a 66-33 "victory" to Romney

How many states delivered similar margins to Obama?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The really queer bit about the Holy Rollers in the "Christian Right" is that they act against what normal people would consider Christian values in areas like "I was hungry" and "I was sick". Do you really believe that these "Christians' are willing to see improvements in feeding the poor or caring for the sick? Like hell they are.

Since the dawn of civilization the world has been split between people who derive their power from violence and the people who derive their power from the free exchange of goods and services, it is just that over time the roles have evolved. On the camp of the people who derive their power from physical violence, the transition from monarchy/tyranny to the current environment was actually very seamless - the same kind of people are now attracted to roles in politics and government. However, with regards to moral violence, the role of the intellectual justifier for the use of physical violence has largely moved from the clergy to academia. That left the church a bit at odds about what to do, so they are trying to catch up.

In other words, I don't take lessons on what to do with my money or how moral my way of making it is from someone who makes a living out of telling fairy tale stories to gullible people. Same reason I don't ask the Tarot lady in my street for career advice, really.

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 9):
Polling shows how much gains the Democrats are making with young voters and minorities (esp Hispanics).

Young (i.e., naive) voters have always voted for Democrats, and the minority plantation has always been effective at keeping people poor so they can believe voting Democrat improves their chances in life. And at some point Asians, who still lean Democrat, are going to realize they represent exactly everything the Democratic party has sought to vilify (strong family values, success and social mobility through hard work and entrepreneurship) and see how much they are being targeted by Democratic policies (e.g., making it harder for their kids to get a proper higher education) and come to their senses.

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 9):
A majority of young voters support progressive causes and many of them may probably remain as Democratic voters as they get older.

Like they say, "if you are not left-wing by the time you are 20, you have no heart, if you are not right-wing by the time you are 40 you have no brain". Luckily I have always valued my brain above everything else (that is how I managed to avoid other stupid things people do when they are young, like starting to smoke or driving drunk).

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 10):
Think of all the young mothers in need who could've been tangibly helped instead of bloated war chests filling our tvs with ridiculous attack ads.

Think of all the mothers in need that could be helped with all the money that goes to the abortion mills at Planned Parenthood.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 5):
My fear is that Mitt wasn't religious fundamentalist enough to excite the base in Virginia, Ohio & etc.

I don't think there are enough people to excite in those states any more, and certainly not without upsetting the rest.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):

The problem for the GOP is that they can't afford to upset this group,

I don't think they can afford to play to this group either, as we saw in this election. Next election this group is going to be smaller, older, 'deader' and even less relevant.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 727 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
It's something the GOP just can't give up on.

Agreed.
.
That big red ocean from the Carolinas to Kansas is probably the most reliable and largest single voting block ... the foundation of Nixon's Southern Strategy which isn't going to change their worldview just because of a lost election, (not their first btw)....and the GOP isn't going to stop pandering to them without major withdrawal symptoms.

Quoting us330 (Reply 4):
party of small government, which is what they were before they got in bed with the religious right.

A lot of these youngsters now mistakenly believe that the likes of Reagan and Nixon mentioned God every 5 minutes or made abortion a national issue like Bush and Rove did, but they didn't, and won peerless landslides in large part because they were fiscal conservatives (and aggressive cold warriors) who kept religion a more quiet matter.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
still mad about the Civil Rights Law that LBJ signed.

LBJ gave up the south, and except for Watergate there wouldn't have been another Dem president until Clnton 25 years later.

....Thats why the Republicans will not get too far away from the Southern values IMO. It is still the case that if you win this big red ocean plus maybe 1 or 2 other states, you can win...which doesn't sound THAT hard!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The really queer bit about the Holy Rollers in the "Christian Right" is that they act against what normal people would consider Christian values in areas like "I was hungry" and "I was sick". Do you really believe that these "Christians' are willing to see improvements in feeding the poor or caring for the sick? Like hell they are.

This is a huge area where Republicans aeen't nearly the natural choice for Hispanics they believe they are: Catholics are very much more into helping the poor (as official policy-not as private initiatives)....and that tired old abortion issue is not materially more attractive to Catholics than anyone else, despite church policy.

Pu


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1887 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

The "Christian Right" is far from done. If anything, this loss is going to push many even further right. Think of it as sort of a defense mechanism. The group may be smaller, but it won't lose strength, because some will leave, but some will also become more extreme to "preserve their values and ideals".

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
The situation has become so ridiculous they consider "progress" when women are able to indiscriminately kill unborn babies just so they don't have to live with the consequences of their own decisions (a liberal dogma).

If this isn't an oversimplification then I don't know what is.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
liberal atheist, as in, an oikophobe that will go out of their own way to justify any religious behavior no matter how barbaric it is just as long as it is not perpetrated by a Christian

Liberals might do it more often, but being an apologist has nothing to do with political affiliation. You'll find them in every party in some form or another.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
And at some point Asians, who still lean Democrat, are going to realize they represent exactly everything the Democratic party has sought to vilify (strong family values

"Strong family values" in the Asian sense and "strong family values" in the right wing sense are not at all the same thing. I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6):
I'd consider myself more libertarian
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6):
I will always be pro-life

I can certainly appreciate your reasoning for being pro-life...but does that not conflict with your libertarianism?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7786 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 10):
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):

Both of you, despite me disagreeing with some of your views, just earned spots on my Respected Users list. You guys show what true listening in politics means.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
I can certainly appreciate your reasoning for being pro-life...but does that not conflict with your libertarianism?

It can, but I don't let it. That's the beauty if Libertarianism; true libertarians discuss, not bash. If i wanted to have a debate with a fellow Libertarian about the issue of Abortion, I know somehow we can come through with a compromise.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):

I don't think there are enough people to excite in those states any more, and certainly not without upsetting the rest.

Agree. 7 out of the 10 richest counties in the U.S. are in the Washington D.C. metro area. As long as that well keeps running there is no way Virginia will ever vote Republican again. They are the very definition of takers.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
"Strong family values" in the Asian sense and "strong family values" in the right wing sense are not at all the same thing. I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion.

How many Asian single mothers living off of government food stamps, or Asian men with multiple baby mommas, do you know?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6309 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

The demise of the Christian wacko faction has been rumored and predicted for many years. They, along with the tea party idiots will be around catering being kowtowed to by the republicans for years to come.

[Edited 2012-11-07 17:15:33]


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently onlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4704 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
The situation has become so ridiculous they consider "progress" when women are able to indiscriminately kill unborn babies just so they don't have to live with the consequences of their own decisions (a liberal dogma).

This is the problem with conservatives, they think that making other people believe what they do is imperative.
Abortion has been around for years illegal and legal. Pro-Choice means that is should be the mother's choice to a certain point. It protects those that have been raped, or suffered incest or suffering medical conditions a way to end what they didn't want. Being Pro-life is fine from a personal point of view, but to impose that view on others is just wrong, especially when in many cases, there are reasons for terminating the pregnancy beyond what most can handle.

The real plan to limit abortions should not be to make it illegal. There would be far too many black market abortions. The real solutions are to find ways to help people make the choice of life over abortion.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
Is the Christian Right done?

It is not done. It is dwindling though. When it finally is pushed to the sidelines, and abortion and gay marriage bans are not passed as purity tests for elected offices ,the Christian Right will be done.

Quoting pu (Reply 15):
That big red ocean from the Carolinas to Kansas is probably the most reliable and largest single voting block

But that is the wrong belief. North Carolina is teetering on the edge of being a reliable democratic stronghold Nationally. Within the state itself there are issue with ethics that occurred to destroy the state party. However in the next 10 years, NC will be becoming more purple than red. The congressional voting block of gerrymandering is the reason for the 9-4 split in congressional races. (More votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans). The GOP is loosing touch with North Carolina and probably soon it will be Georgia as well.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3335 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
How many Asian single mothers living off of government food stamps, or Asian men with multiple
baby mommas, do you know?

My God you really are judgmental. I can't imagine living with the mentality that you appear to. You attempt to lump everyone into some neat little package, and vilify them for having different beliefs. Why such hate?

I'm far from super-religious, but I'm interested in how you know "for a fact" that all religions are wrong.

Open your eyes to the world around you. It doesn't fit all these preconceived notions you think it does.

I'm liberal. My parents (also liberal) worked hard for their money after obtaining graduate degrees, and are currently in the top 3% of wage-earners in the US. They do not mooch off the system. I worked hard and earned two college degrees, and currently have a job that pays more than the median household income in the US at 24. We don't fit into your notion that liberals are lazy.

You can try to paint a picture of large groups of people into whatever you want them to be, but don't mistake your narcissistic elitism for truth. The world isn't black and white, and attitudes like yours create the ever-growing polarity we see in the US and across the planet.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
How many Asian single mothers living off of government food stamps, or Asian men with multiple baby mommas, do you know?

I have a few in my patient panel, but not many.

The issue is not "family values." They don't think of things in such terms. The issue is one of priorities. Growing up Jewish, we understand these priorities well.

After shelter, food, and medical care are taken care of, the next most important priority in the typical Asian household is education. It is exactly the same in a typical Jewish household. That's why both demographics tend to do so well.

You will go to school. You will get good grades. You will graduate high school. You will go to college. You will study something that will get you employed. You will have a plan for a career as young as high school. In our household, these things were never even discussed; they were assumed. It never even occurred to me that not going to college was an option. In my family, college is what you do after high school just like high school is what you do after middle school.

In my work, I work with a lot of families families and what I have noticed is that whether families are socially liberal and permissive or socially strict and repressive is unimportant. The kids will do what the kids will do behind the parents' backs.

However, if the family demands academic excellence and uses that as the primary metric for success, the kids tend to stay out of drugs, don't become teenage parents, and stay out of trouble with the law. That is because these behaviors are incompatible with academic excellence. The kids are taught from a very young age to delay gratification and that, not Bible-thumping or "Family Values," keeps them out of trouble.

I will also point that in many religious extremist families, whether it is Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, liberal education is actually shunned because it might expose the children to facts and views contrary to doctrine. Can't have them learning evolution or cosmology or history that might contradict the Bible (or whichever book). These children often do very poorly as adults, especially as many of them rebel against their parents' religious beliefs.

[Edited 2012-11-07 17:43:16]

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):

It's something the GOP just can't give up on.

The bible belt is solid red.

If they give that up, where do they start from?

From here:

Quote:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2007/12/the-berry-goldw.html



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6646 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
7 out of the 10 richest counties in the U.S. are in the Washington D.C. metro area.

This is just patently false.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-...ins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.html

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
As long as that well keeps running there is no way Virginia will ever vote Republican again.

Virginia's governor is a Republican who lobbied aggressively against cuts in government spending.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
They are the very definition of takers.

However, most of the government spending in Virginia is defense related and those folks lean Republican.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
Think of all the mothers in need that could be helped with all the money that goes to the abortion mills at Planned Parenthood.

The vast majority of Planned Parenthood funding does not go to abortions.

I don't think the Christian Right is dead, however their influence will fade to being a minor player....much how the Catholic Church's influence has faded.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):
t protects those that have been rape
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
indiscriminately kill unborn babies just so they don't have to live with the consequences of their own decisions

And how exactly is getting raped a consequence of someone's own decisions?

Oh, and what percentage of abortions happen due to rape?

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 21):

I'm far from super-religious, but I'm interested in how you know "for a fact" that all religions are wrong.

Easy. I have this thing in between my ears called a "brain", and when I use it reaches that conclusion. I am willing to re-consider, though - if God exists, he can send me a PM (Instagram is fine as well).

Despite the fact that Descartes was one of the intellectual founders of rationalism, just because he tried (unsuccessfully) to prove the existence of God doesn't mean it can be done. You would be amazed how much more clearly you start seeing things once you embrace rationalism. Allows you to see straight past intentions and into outcomes, for one

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):

I have a few in my patient panel, but not many.

And San Francisco has a lot of Asian people...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
In my family, college is what you do after high school just like high school is what you do after middle school.

And when in college you are probably more incentivized to study hard, preferably something specific and useful instead of "General Studies", and not spend 4 years of your life perfecting your beer pong technique, no?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
The kids are taught from a very young age to delay gratification and that, not Bible-thumping or "Family Values," keeps them out of trouble.

Whatever keeps them out of trouble, those three things, to different extents, are much more a stable of a right-wing platform than a left-wing one... don't recall when was the last time I saw a Democratic politician campaigning on a platform of delayed gratification.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
Young (i.e., naive) voters have always voted for Democrats

This stuck out amid all the mischaracterizations and broad-based attacks on "liberals" because I just looked at your profile, which says that you are a student in the 26-35 age range. You're not exactly a graybeard either and it's my observation that hard-nosed atheist libertarianism tends to flourish most strongly among young (i.e., naive, to use your words) people as well.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
Whatever keeps them out of trouble, those three things, to different extents, are much more a stable of a right-wing platform than a left-wing one... don't recall when was the last time I saw a Democratic politician campaigning on a platform of delayed gratification.

Don't remember ever seeing too many Republicans do that either, to be quite honest. Tax cuts are nothing if not a promise of gratification now rather than later. Listen you can go religion-denying all you want but you're endorsing all the hot-button items in the religious right's agenda, most of which have been repudiated by most of the country. In the case of Planned Parenthood, you're lifting their talking points verbatim in order to make a case that the money would be better spent on other aspects of women's health car (as though that isn't 90% of Planned Parenthood's business.) You can make noise about how various non-white, younger, or non-Christian demographics will eventually break for the GOP as it stands, and you might even be right, but the current fact is that they've made what votes they've gotten on the strength of policies that would provide the most material benefit to white people and old people.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13148 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

The Christian right have had their cycles of ups and down since the USA was born. Sometimes they have gone to extremes, like with alcohol and drug prohibitions early in the 20th Century with bad results. Currently, they are in a down cycle due to changes from more people being more educated, more experiences with those of other faiths and the limits of fatith. People are far more concerned with jobs, income, debts and so on, many realize that religion is not the only answer for our problems.

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12526 posts, RR: 35
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 24):
I don't think the Christian Right is dead, however their influence will fade to being a minor player....much how the Catholic Church's influence has faded.

I was actually thinking about that the other day; my father, who is quite conservative, is a member of some Catholic online forums; he would be an Obama supporter (he lives in Ireland), but he is often amazed at the strength of feeling - indeed the ferocity - of American Catholic intellectuals against Obama. Traditionally in America, the Catholic Church has been more strongly allied to the Democrats, because most people of Irish (and obviously immigrants of other nationalities) descent were poor immigrants; it was, as it should always be, an organisation to help the downtrodden and afflicted.

But seriously ... at some point, perhaps as Catholics became richer and were no longer subject to discrimination, the Church shook off that mantle and began to focus much more on "moral" issues. I'm sure that in many parts of the US, the Church continues to do good work among the poor, but its focus now seems much more to be on moral issues particularly abortion and homosexuality, and I think its standing has suffered because of that - not helped, of course, by the various abuse scandals, which have always totally undermined its moral authority. Certainly, that message has not been learned by Rome and it seems to me that the Church's pronouncements on moral issues FAR outweigh its pronouncements on social justice. I don't expect any change on this as long as the current Pope is alive, but even in the longer term, with the college of Cardinals mostly appointed by Benedict, you're hardly going to get a liberal next either.

I guess my point is that if the Church has stuck to the social issues - the poor, the tired and huddled masses etc - they wouldn't be in the fix they are now; in the current economic environment, there is certainly a much greater need for this than for pontificating on moral issues; their respect (and perhaps confidence) would grow and they would probably reverse their decline.

As for the rest of the "Christian" right, I think that demographics will ultimately work against them; I don't think you'll see a steep decline, but certainly their inflexible stances on social issues, and their "whiteness" will alienate them. I'm all for that; I'm certainly not an atheist, but I do have a strong belief in the separation of Church and State, and in particular, politics and religion.

What it means for the Republican party is far more of a concern (to them!); they've basically associated themselves with a demographic which is not only declining, but has also been perceived (and is actually, in many cases) hostile to many others. That's a bit of a problem. My heart bleeds.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 29):


But seriously ... at some point, perhaps as Catholics became richer and were no longer subject to discrimination, the Church shook off that mantle and began to focus much more on "moral" issues.

While the Holy See and the Pope have taken that stance, I can assure you the individual community churches in the US are still VERY community oriented and assistive of those in need over "moral" issues, while at the Diocese level and above, they're still trying to mop up the pedophile priest mess.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
And when in college you are probably more incentivized to study hard, preferably something specific and useful instead of "General Studies", and not spend 4 years of your life perfecting your beer pong technique, no?

Yes, because I internalized that.

Also because I decided at a young age that most of the liberal arts were a bunch of fluff that had no practical use while science and technology actually got things done. I was told that I'd change on that viewpoint as I "matured."

Well, I'm 35 and I guess I'm "immature." I still feel that few if any of the liberal arts classes I took were of any use to me in any aspect of my life other than cocktail conversation. To this day, I regret all the literature and art history classes I was forced to take; I could have taken stuff that was interesting, like anthropology and meteorology. All stuff I didn't have time for because of liberal arts requirements in college.

My scientific education drives me in my work and in my life, on the other hand.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
Whatever keeps them out of trouble, those three things, to different extents, are much more a stable of a right-wing platform than a left-wing one...

I disagree, but nothing I say will convince you that I'm right, so we'll move on.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 30):

Yeah I think the same... I see helping the poor and stuff the most but most of the news faces on the more minor things so many think that's what Catholics make a big deal about...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 24):

This is just patently false.

Except it isn't. By none other than that libertarian rag, the Washington Post.

http://www.wjla.com/pictures/2012/09...-loudoun-county-va-25978-1804.html

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 24):
Virginia's governor is a Republican who lobbied aggressively against cuts in government spending.

Virginia's governor can say whatever he wants, but he has no power to alter Federal spending. Virginia will never elect a Republican President, who does not have the need to appease a specific state.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 24):
However, most of the government spending in Virginia is defense related and those folks lean Republican.

In southern Virginia maybe, in and around D.C. it is mostly the peddlers of pull.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 26):
a student in the 26-35 age range. You're not exactly a graybeard either
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 26):
tends to flourish most strongly among young (i.e., naive, to use your words) people as well.

No longer a student. Perhaps not high in age, but am certainly mature beyond my years. Being young is not necessarily a sign of naivete, but it certainly helps. Being old is not necessarily a sign of maturity either - just take a stroll through downtown Berkeley.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 27):
Don't remember ever seeing too many Republicans do that either, to be quite honest.

Campaigning on a balanced budget is the very definition of delayed gratification. You might disagree on what the best way to balance the budget there is, but most Republicans at least pretend to care about the deficit. Many Democrats seem to think you can keep running trillion-dollar plus deficits ad-eternum.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5488 posts, RR: 13
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):

They may have lost the battle but they are far from losing any war. One of the sad aspects of religious fanaticism whatever the faith, is that the extrmes use a street gang thug mentality. If you don't go my way, it's the highway to hell or whatvever nastyland exists in their eyes.

Things go in cycles and history repeats itself. Back in the long Reagan 80's anything Democrat or liberal was akin to being a died in the wool commie and anti American.
Well, the pendulam has swung the other way.

I have utmost confidence the religious right much like their similar but hated Taliban will get their media machine in order and crank out the fire and brimstone message. Also they will have more control and reign over their bretheran who like to dabble in things like diddeling kiddies and other hypocratic behaviors that buck their religious ideals.
I say, let them practice their faith, views as long as it doesn't hurt others such as kids of the same sex and if they leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Tell you what, I'll let them have Louisiana and Utah to have their fun just leave us the F alone!



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3424 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

The Latino community is generally pretty religious and socially conservative, is it not? Could a new guard of younger (and lets be honest here, browner) Republican leaders turn the hispanic vote? The talk now is about how increasingly strong democratic allegiance among the growing latino population is turning the southwest more blue, but if the conservatives can turn this around we might find California in play. Or maybe I'm way off. Thoughts?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33):
Perhaps not high in age, but am certainly mature beyond my years.

Just so you know, thats not something you say if you expect to be taken seriously. It is something others say about you if you've proven it to be true.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3424 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 34):
Tell you what, I'll let them have Louisiana and Utah to have their fun just leave us the F alone!

Whatwhatwhat?! For the love of god, give them Mississippi! We're keeping New Orleans!



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
I could have taken stuff that was interesting, like anthropology

Seriously, anthropology didn't count as a liberal arts requirement? It is hardly a hard science...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
All stuff I didn't have time for because of liberal arts requirements in college.

Or, crazy thought, you could have gone into medical school straight out of high school, studied for 6 years only things that were actually relevant for medical purposes and graduate sooner and with less debt, thereby reducing the barriers to entry to the medical profession and bringing down healthcare costs. Many countries seem to do things this way and don't think the quality of medical education or practice is any worse, provided you have a proper admissions process out of high school.

BTW, I know you specifically probably couldn't as you wouldn't have had the choice, but somehow in the middle of all the discussions about bringing down healthcare costs in the U.S. I missed the discussion on this very simple solution. Not sure how the AMA would think about making access to the medical profession easier, though...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
I disagree, but nothing I say will convince you that I'm right, so we'll move on.

At the very least, the success of the Asian community in the U.S. is a continued reminder of the failure of the left's social policies and that of the Great Society. The fact that a marginalized community in the 60s and 70s, many of them illegal immigrants who in many cases could barely speak English, without any specific programs, policies or handouts designed to help them managed to become one of the most prosperous in the U.S. has to get on some people's nerves. That is why some Democrat politicians such as Marion "Asians ought to go" Barry resent them.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 35):
Just so you know, thats not something you say if you expect to be taken seriously. It is something others say about you if you've proven it to be true.

I guess - would never call that to myself but it's basically been written on every performance review I have had over the past few years... obviously not going to post that here.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
7 out of the 10 richest counties in the U.S. are in the Washington D.C. metro area. As long as that well keeps running there is no way Virginia will ever vote Republican again. They are the very definition of takers.

Are you suggesting that people who live in rich counties are "takers"?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1948 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
Are you suggesting that people who live in rich counties are "takers"?

In the counties in and around D.C. yes. Unless you are seriously suggesting that government spending (broadly - politicians, staffers, bureaucrats, lobbyists, etc.) is not by far and away the chief driver of income in those counties.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 37):
Or, crazy thought, you could have gone into medical school straight out of high school, studied for 6 years only things that were actually relevant for medical purposes and graduate sooner and with less debt, thereby reducing the barriers to entry to the medical profession and bringing down healthcare costs.

The extra two years were worth it. There is value to having an education in something other than medicine. For me, I have an M.S. in molecular biology. I like our system that gives you more mature physicians and makes sure they are really sure they want it at 22-23, not at 17-18.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 37):
The fact that a marginalized community in the 60s and 70s, many of them illegal immigrants who in many cases could barely speak English, without any specific programs, policies or handouts designed to help them managed to become one of the most prosperous in the U.S. has to get on some people's nerves.

It can be explained by selection bias. Same as Jews. Same as Indians. We are comprised of the driven and ambitious immigrants who came here from abroad. That culture of hard work and valuing education came with us. It is neither liberal nor is it conservative. Most Jews are political liberals and the same is true of most Asians and Indians. There are also conservatives.

You should stop labeling everything good in the world as Conservative and everything bad as Liberal. That's one reason your side lost. Hard work is a bipartisan concept. Liberals did not just win that election through laziness.


User currently offlinepellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Christians are done in the US, as are right-wingers...as a political movement. There is nothing for them anymore. Goodbye.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 42):

Christians are done in the US, as are right-wingers...as a political movement. There is nothing for them anymore. Goodbye.

Not so fast. They are extremists. They aren't going down quietly. Most will die out and leave a less loony generation in their wake, but some are going to raise quite a fuss.


User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 38):
but it's basically been written on every performance review I have had over the past few years

"basically"

i.e., it has not actually been written on your performance reviews - it is just what you interpret (we often hear what we wish to hear)



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

The GOP does have lots of problems.

Indeed, demographics are not working in their favor.

Also, their view on social issues aren't in favor - note the new openly gay Senator, one more medical marijuana state, two new recreational marijuana states.

The idea of being pro-life in your own is fine, but it gets them right into that old question of rape victims. Why should a rape victim be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy?

They could try to reorganize around a core of less government and being pro-small business, but I think it's fair to say that's uncharted territory for the GOP. All the GOP administrations in my life have ended up growing government, especially the military. Also a lot of GOP support comes from big business, so I'm not sure how they're going to favor small business.

Also as we've seen it's hard for a political organization to change from within. An outsider has to come along and shake it up, and we have no way of knowing who that could possibly be.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
The situation has become so ridiculous they consider "progress" when women are able to indiscriminately kill unborn babies just so they don't have to live with the consequences of their own decisions (a liberal dogma).

Depends on the jurisdiction in which you live. In Canada the Supreme Court has ruled that foetuses are not vested in human rights until fully birthed. Ergo, an abortion is not killing a human being. It's not a baby until born.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
(strong family values,

Pray tell, exactly what are "family values" ? Further, what exactly is a "family" ?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
Like they say, "if you are not left-wing by the time you are 20, you have no heart, if you are not right-wing by the time you are 40 you have no brain".

Not"they", but Winston Churchill. The fact that Britain survived WW2 whilst being led by someone who outdrank Boris Yeltsin amazes me.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):
This is the problem with conservatives, they think that making other people believe what they do is imperative.
Abortion has been around for years illegal and legal.

So has prostitution. The fact that these behaviours persist despite both social and legal condemnation tells me that society in the large has to make some type of reasonably accomodation with both. It's a solution that is practical and not driven by ideology or theology.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43):
They are extremists. They aren't going down quietly. Most will die out and leave a less loony generation in their wake, but some are going to raise quite a fuss.

I'm not so sure; they have zero leverage. Sure they can make a stink in the primaries to push forth a candidate who will increasingly be unelectable. They're speeding toward militant Islamist territory, which is really a different side of the same animal.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 15):
Thats why the Republicans will not get too far away from the Southern values IMO. It is still the case that if you win this big red ocean plus maybe 1 or 2 other states, you can win...which doesn't sound THAT hard!

Lots of states with small electoral counts, except for TX. For the GOP to get ahead, they have to find a way to make a big state like CA or NY tip to their side.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):
Being Pro-life is fine from a personal point of view, but to impose that view on others is just wrong, especially when in many cases, there are reasons for terminating the pregnancy beyond what most can handle.

The real plan to limit abortions should not be to make it illegal. There would be far too many black market abortions. The real solutions are to find ways to help people make the choice of life over abortion.

Yes, this is what someone who convinced themselves a compromise is necessary would say. However, the hardcore religious feel they don't need to compromise.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):
North Carolina is teetering on the edge of being a reliable democratic stronghold Nationally. Within the state itself there are issue with ethics that occurred to destroy the state party. However in the next 10 years, NC will be becoming more purple than red. The congressional voting block of gerrymandering is the reason for the 9-4 split in congressional races. (More votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans). The GOP is loosing touch with North Carolina and probably soon it will be Georgia as well.

I agree. It seemed NC would go blue till Obama's comments supporting gay marriage. In four years, gay marriage will be a non-issue there, IMHO.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23):
Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

Yes, I miss Barry Goldwater. Amongst the other stuff you list, he was an avid ham radio operator.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
Young (i.e., naive) voters have always voted for Democrats

LOL, again you with your damnable absolutes! My first presidential vote was cast at age 18 for Ronald Reagan, as was my second at 22. I wasn't at all liberal til that horror show called the GWB administration wasn't elected.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
In four years, gay marriage will be a non-issue there, IMHO.

   And then what? Spend all their time on abortion? I just don't know what they do to turn around their accelerating decline.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 49):
And then what? Spend all their time on abortion?

I think there will always be a group who will find the words "pro life" and "family values" appealing.

The wise GOP candidate needs to find a way to have these people on-board, but not driving the agenda so they don't turn off more centrist voters.

The candidate just needs to say they are pro-life and for family values and make darn sure to not go into the nuances, that should be enough to keep the religious right on-board.

They also need to find someone who isn't so directly tied to the wealthy.

Hopefully they'd be someone who can bring along a state with a large number of electoral votes.

Ronald Reagan and GWB pulled it off.

Not yet seeing that person for 2016.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1901 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):

The wise GOP candidate needs to find a way to have these people on-board

Do they though? What if Mitt Romney, ignoring the primaries, ran on his MA record without changing or backtracking on anything? I think he would have gained much more normally Obama-voters than he would have lost on the hard right.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Yes, I miss Barry Goldwater.

In a lot of ways, so do I.

Some quotes:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."


Over time I've learned that Arizona Republicans are a different breed entirely. Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative, should be required reading for anyone truly wanting to understand U.S. politics and the true conservative movement void of the mangling the Christian Right has performed on it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11734 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
The situation has become so ridiculous they consider "progress" when women are able to indiscriminately kill unborn babies just so they don't have to live with the consequences of their own decisions (a liberal dogma).

I can read posts by other right wingers and see their point and reply thoughtfully my own opinion without degrading them. You just start the degridation right out of the gate.

The new religous right in politics fly in the face of everything Jesus Christ stood for: the whole "Me First, screw everyone else" attitude that is the Republican party while, at the same time, blaming everyone else when their own lives and plans fail. Many who vote, vote against these policies. Many people understand that those policies are not who they, the voter, are and are not what they, the voter, want this country to be.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
at's the beauty if Libertarianism; true libertarians discuss, not bash

Any true American wants that. The ones who don't are die-hard FOX/AM radio listening people.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
As long as that well keeps running there is no way Virginia will ever vote Republican again. They are the very definition of takers.

Which states recieve the most entitlements per capita?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
Which states recieve the most entitlements per capita?

I can't find the state-by-state allocation graphic I've seen before, but I did run across an interesting article in the New York Times that further discusses the spending spree of conservatives and who they spend money on:

Thurston Howell Romney (love the title!)

"In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones ...

... The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor."


The picture painted by the GOP regarding who's sucking the most at the government teet, and which party has run up the deficit the most, has been a great big lie for a long, long, time.

From the linked article: "They found that government spending, relative to the size of the economy, increased much faster under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. George W. Bush presided over a greater increase in government spending than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and George H.W. Bush wasn't far behind. Bill Clinton, in contrast, was the only president since Eisenhower to actually reduce government spending. Even Reagan didn't do that ...

... On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama was sworn into office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that George W. Bush was bequeathing a budget deficit of $1.2 trillion. This year, the deficit is $1.3 trillion.

In other words, 92 percent of the deficit that everyone blames on Obama was actually inherited from his predecessor."



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 47):
I'm not so sure; they have zero leverage.

Politically, but...

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 47):
They're speeding toward militant Islamist territory, which is really a different side of the same animal.

Bingo. And that's what worries me. Taking that whole "onward Christian soldiers" thing a bit too seriously.

No, I'm not just paranoid. When you are absolutely, positively convinced you are right and reality smacks you in the face, violence is a common result. People are more likely to kill over ideas than resources.


User currently offlineglobalflyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 934 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1883 times:

I am a devout Christian however I am growing more and more tired of the growing hypocracy within. I live in the "Bible Belt" and you should see how brainwashed the kids are because of what they are learning in the church and at home. The kids will go to church crying and moaning about how they have sinned and then go out in the parking lot to drink and light up the ciggies! Not to mention all of the gay bashing. When Obama won yesterday many in my town went to Facebook on how they could no longer go on and how depressed they were. I say then get out! I am sure Air Koryo has a one way ticket for you! Thankfully my kids see through all of this! I am saddened that the church has turned to this and that people are so biggoted and ignorant! These mega churches in the South are some of the worse. $$$ and you will be saved. The GOP will hopefully never return to power as long as they have these ignorant attitudes.


Landing on every Continent almost on an annual basis!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):
People are more likely to kill over ideas than resources.

Out of curiosity, what form of violence do you fear in San Francisco? Isolated bombings for whatever reason, revenge attacks upon individuals of selected groups (already a factor but not as an organized group activity), militant group uprisings, or something else?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 57):
Out of curiosity, what form of violence do you fear in San Francisco? Isolated bombings for whatever reason, revenge attacks upon individuals of selected groups (already a factor but not as an organized group activity), militant group uprisings, or something else?

If it happens (and I honestly hope it doesn't) I would expect either gay bashing attacks (beatings, shootings) or bombings, particularly in the Castro (gay district). There is a massive, battleship-sized pride flag that flies over the intersection of Castro and Market and to me it is a big "bomb here!" sign.

I am heartened and pleasantly surprised that I have not heard the sort of talk of sedition that I predicted we would hear from the Right given their rhetoric leading up to the election. I have actually heard the Right say that they lost the election and not blame it on fraud (except for Mr. Trump). Many of them have lamented that the country is dead and for them, it might well be dead. Sucks to have your worldview shattered by the cold, stony fist of reality.

We shall see what happens in the coming weeks.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1879 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 51):
What if Mitt Romney, ignoring the primaries, ran on his MA record without changing or backtracking on anything? I think he would have gained much more normally Obama-voters than he would have lost on the hard right.

I guess we'll never know. He did tack to center after the primaries, and excelled at the first debate, but when push came to shove the majority of people just didn't feel he was the man to represent them and their interests.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
The new religous right in politics fly in the face of everything Jesus Christ stood for: the whole "Me First, screw everyone else" attitude that is the Republican party while, at the same time, blaming everyone else when their own lives and plans fail.

        

The ironic thing is that Christianity took off in the early days because of its charity towards others. It represented a change from "an eye for an eye" towards "going the extra mile" and "if he asks for your coat, give him your cloak too". Now it's amazing to me to see people who call themselves Christians to be so uncharitable, and in some cases, hoarders. Martin Luther preached against the greed and opulence of the Church centuries ago, but when I see the opulence and self-indulgence that many "Protestant" Churches represent (especially down South, the home of the "mega-church"), I'm sure Luther would have something to say about it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1874 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
The ironic thing is that Christianity took off in the early days because of its charity towards others. It represented a change from "an eye for an eye" towards "going the extra mile" and "if he asks for your coat, give him your cloak too". Now it's amazing to me to see people who call themselves Christians to be so uncharitable, and in some cases, hoarders. Martin Luther preached against the greed and opulence of the Church centuries ago, but when I see the opulence and self-indulgence that many "Protestant" Churches represent (especially down South, the home of the "mega-church"), I'm sure Luther would have something to say about it.

The trouble with religion is that you can use it to justify anything you like and claim it's divine will. The religious extremists often talk about social liberals as having no moral compass, but my rebuttal is that the religious extremist moral compass is broken. It always points north. So while your sword is impaling another human being's heart, as long as you are doing it for Christ Jesus (or Allah or whomever you like) it's not only OK, it's actually divine!

As I pointed out above, the current brand of conservative Christians have taken their faith to defend any action except homosexuality (and I do not say that facetiously) as long as they accept Christ Jesus as their lord and savior. If they pray enough, it's all good.

And they can show you the verses (John 3:16 is a favorite) to back it up.

Our country is going to have to stand up to them at some point and point out that the state guarantees freedom of religion but that religion is not the foundation of the state.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):
Bingo. And that's what worries me. Taking that whole "onward Christian soldiers" thing a bit too seriously.

Is that really worse though? I think they have the potential to wreak far more havoc in a position of power than the odd lashing out, though the latter will get far more publicity.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 11
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I cannot stand the Christian Right and I'm a Republican!

What the GOP needs to do is stay the hell away from women's bodies, any Gay agenda (they're Americans too and here to stay so get used to it!) and concentrate on our Totally Screwed Up Economy with a young, intelligent and energetic set of candidates!

IMHO, we are a moderate nation but we need fiscal conservancy!

Just my   

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
Unless you are seriously suggesting that government spending (broadly - politicians, staffers, bureaucrats, lobbyists, etc.) is not by far and away the chief driver of income in those counties.

People who work for the government are not takers. They earn that money through their labor.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Interesting discussion, all.

I've always said the religious right (the American Taliban) has hijacked the GOP. We're seeing the effects of that now.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the religious right has been marginalized. Perhaps that was the best outcome of the election.



Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
I find this to be a ghastly theology that frankly borders on sociopathy. The idea that you are superior to others solely because of your religious beliefs and that your behavior towards others is incidental at best. A sense of inherent superiority is what binds just about every despot tyrant together.

That's one of the big problems with right wing extremists. I'm under the impression that some do believe that they enjoy some god given privileges and that everybody else belong to some sort of underclass. The 'others'. Of course, left wing extremists are dangerous as well, but I'm inclined to think that they tend to be less perverse for they don't intially believe that they are inherently different and superior.

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 35):
The Latino community is generally pretty religious and socially conservative, is it not?

You'd be surprised of how 'lay' (as in non religious) Mexican governments were through the XX century, and with it, public education, birth control policies, etc. Can't speak for the rest of Latinos, but when it comes to Mexicans my bet is they'll never vote for the GOP based on ideological grounds.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
It can, but I don't let it. That's the beauty if Libertarianism; true libertarians discuss, not bash. If i wanted to have a debate with a fellow Libertarian about the issue of Abortion, I know somehow we can come through with a compromise.

A libertarian wanting to control women's bodies is not a libertarian, sorry.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
We are comprised of the driven and ambitious immigrants who came here from abroad.

And leaving your country to find a better life somewhere else doesn't seem very conservative to me.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Yes, this is what someone who convinced themselves a compromise is necessary would say. However, the hardcore religious feel they don't need to compromise.

They would not just say it but also do something about it, if it's such an important matter for them. And by that I don't mean bombing planned parenthood centers but rather working in them !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting AM744 (Reply 65):
I'm under the impression that some do believe that they enjoy some god given privileges and that everybody else belong to some sort of underclass.

Not some, but all. You have to believe that you are superior to others or you can't be an extremist. It's part of the definition, really. I would argue that it's part and parcel. Not just a generalization but a definition.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting AM744 (Reply 65):
but when it comes to Mexicans my bet is they'll never vote for the GOP based on ideological grounds.

   Why would Mexicans be voting in an American election?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5488 posts, RR: 13
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 62):

Former Mayor Rudy Giuillani said it best last night in an inerview I caught on CNN:

I'd like to see our party go more liberarian, smaller government and the government out of our pocket books and out of our bedrooms.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 66):
A libertarian wanting to control women's bodies is not a libertarian, sorry.

Are you kidding? Being against abortion is the only possible libertarian position. You decided to have unprotected sex despite being fully aware of the potential consequences, you deal with them, don't take it out on an innocent fetus. You were the one getting shagged, not him.

Funny thing is, the left seems to be all in favor of libertarian solutions as far as men in this situation are concerned (i.e., mandatory child support), which is commendable, but when they apply to women all hell breaks loose.

Quoting Mir (Reply 63):
People who work for the government are not takers. They earn that money through their labor.

Must be doing one heck of a job, then, to deserve salaries that give them 7 out of the top 10 counties in the U.S. Or maybe that is just because they have salaries and benefits that far outweigh the private sector, less hours, job security that can only be dreamed of anywhere else and a general lack of accountability and performance culture. All you need to do is keep coming up with worthless policies to justify your position and make sure your union funds the right politicians who return the favor by improving your situation in life.

Oh, and nobody works for the government - they are employed by it, which is a very different thing.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 70):
Are you kidding? Being against abortion is the only possible libertarian position. You decided to have unprotected sex despite being fully aware of the potential consequences, you deal with them, don't take it out on an innocent fetus. You were the one getting shagged, not him.

Funny thing is, the left seems to be all in favor of libertarian solutions as far as men in this situation are concerned (i.e., mandatory child support), which is commendable, but when they apply to women all hell breaks loose.

I thought libertarianism was about freedom. Freedom to make mistakes, freedom to have sex with who you want, and freedom to control one's own body without having a government decide that according to somebody's idea about proper "consequences" you should have the kid whether you want him or not. Frankly the whole idea of mandating "consequences" upon someone for their actions seems completely topsy-turvy as a libertarian concept in any avenue not just people's personal lives. Choices have consequences, sure, but the whole point is that they come from the decisions people make not some power on high deciding whether or not they should happen, unless you're just inverting every position you see as "leftist" or "liberal."

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 70):
Must be doing one heck of a job, then, to deserve salaries that give them 7 out of the top 10 counties in the U.S. Or maybe that is just because they have salaries and benefits that far outweigh the private sector, less hours, job security that can only be dreamed of anywhere else and a general lack of accountability and performance culture. All you need to do is keep coming up with worthless policies to justify your position and make sure your union funds the right politicians who return the favor by improving your situation in life.

For someone who champions the private sector you sure are doing a good job selling me on public sector employment. "Job security that can only be dreamed of anywhere else," huh? If that's something you're concerned enough about to bring up maybe you should think about why private sector jobs are so insecure. And I really hope you just haven't thought your position completely through and don't think people like food safety inspectors and State Department diplomats are "worthless."


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 70):
Are you kidding? Being against abortion is the only possible libertarian position. You decided to have unprotected sex despite being fully aware of the potential consequences, you deal with them, don't take it out on an innocent fetus. You were the one getting shagged, not him.

Pregnancies happen even when using protection. The innocent fetus is just a fetus, the millions of animals eaten each day in the US have more intelligence than a fetus, why do you care and why should a libertarian care to the point of removing the freedom of a woman to dispose of her body ?

As for child support it's a complicated matter but I disagree with how it's done in the US, just like I disagree with gold diggers getting half the couple's money. If a woman wants to make a child alone, that's fine by me, but then, do it alone.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5637 posts, RR: 29
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

As a Christian, It's really challenging to get through thread after thread of antiChristian vitriol like is in this thread. I simply cannot relate on a personal level to how horrible I'm supposed to be, or uncharitable, or uncaring, or out of step.

I don't think I'm better than anyone else, nor has that ever been taught at any church I've attended. But I do have core values that are somewhat conflicting to throw out the window because they don't mesh with the current world view. I understand why a non-Christian would feel differently, but seriously, am I missing all the hateful Christians in these threads? Of course you have national leaders on the Christian right who might be inflammatory or in some cases embarrassingly wrong, but you get that with any group. It's just the point of view of the person on the receiving end that defines it.

You want to be in a loving same sex relationship, fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through marriage? There's "staying out of the bedroom" and then there's "endorsing what goes on in the bedroom". The former is something most anyone I know would accept as the way it is. The latter is a little like going against what you believe in. That's just my personal viewpoint.

Anyhow, the Christian Right, as it were, may indeed be done. That has zero to do with being a Christian. Sorry to tell those of you who seem to have such disdain for me as a Christian in America, but we aren't going anywhere. We are praying for our President and other leaders, will honor the rule of law, and will continue to vote our conscience. And we may lose. That's the way it goes.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11734 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):
But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through marriage? There's "staying out of the bedroom" and then there's "endorsing what goes on in the bedroom".

I am Christian too. And an American. I don't undersand, as an American, why people care what two consenting adults do. If two consenting adults want to sign a contract, who cares what any other consenting adults think? Separation of church and state. I don't want the government to tell me how or who or where or when to worship. It should not matter to the government how or who I worship. Likewise, it should not matter to anyone else who I sign a contract with, as long as it is a consenting adult. To the government, a marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults and nothing more.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8651 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Would I say the US Christian Right is done, no but their influence in American politics has decreased from mid-last-decade after vigorously standing with Pres. George W. Bush at his re-election I think as they have not stood in great numbers behind John McCain or Mitt Romney and certainly not behind Clinton or Obama.

I think their decline in popularity did not start with the PTL scandal, and Jimmy Swaggart but I think the decline was noticeable from the declension of the Christian Coalition, the Ralph Reed scandals and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell making statements connecting the 9/11 attacks to feminism and abortion.

Though I think the numbers are shrinking and their popularity is declining they are still very passionate in objectives like salvation by Christ alone, being "born-again", adult submergence baptism, and biblical literalism with KJV only bible. They also as always advocate social conservative values in the public sphere and in the ballot box. Though shrinking, they still have a lot of money and power particularly in the Deep South and the "Bible Belt" including institutes like Bob Jones University, Liberty, Regent and Patrick Henry College once known as the "Road to the White House".

[Edited 2012-11-09 00:48:01]


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
I thought libertarianism was about freedom.

Libertarianism is about freedom as long as it affects only you and other consenting parties. Once your freedom starts encroaching on someone else's (in this case an unborn baby) then rules come into play.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
"Job security that can only be dreamed of anywhere else," huh? If that's something you're concerned enough about to bring up maybe you should think about why private sector jobs are so insecure

Because the economy is not something constant, and private companies don't have the power to tax to keep themselves running at full capacity as if nothing had happened during hard times, and performance management gets taken seriously in the private sector, so it is harder to remain constantly employed even if you are lazy or incompetent (still possible, of course, just as long as you join a union, who will then go out of their way to protect you).

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
don't think people like food safety inspectors and State Department diplomats are "worthless."

Food safety inspectors should not be living in D.C., and are probably not making $115k anyway (you would hope). And many State Department personnel are bloated, yes.

The problem with this is that public employees live in a bubble of their own making, where they see the private sector as nothing but a bunch of greedy tax dodgers - I have honestly heard someone say that only public employees pay taxes (who pays their salaries, in that case, is something I wonder). Voluntary turnover (people who voluntarily leave their jobs because they have found something else/better to do) is a huge driver of economic progress, as it allows people to negotiate for better salaries, spread around best practices, leads people to strive to perform at their jobs and improve themselves, etc. and it simply doesn't happen in the public sector. That is why I advocate mandatory term limits for every public profession for which a private sector equivalent exists (which would exclude sovereignty functions, such as judges, military personnel, police officers, etc.)



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
Why would Mexicans be voting in an American election?

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was thinking Mexican-Americans with voting rights. Can't really speak for the rest of the Latin American communities.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 76):
Once your freedom starts encroaching on someone else's (in this case an unborn baby) then rules come into play.

Is an embryo a citizen?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):
But I do have core values that are somewhat conflicting to throw out the window because they don't mesh with the current world view.

I hope you understand that many Muslim Americans, Hindu Americans, Atheist Americans, Jewish Americans, etc. feel the same way.

As Clinton said, we're all in this together.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):
We are praying for our President and other leaders, will honor the rule of law, and will continue to vote our conscience.

I hope then that you are praying for the upholding of the Constitution's separation of church and state then.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5637 posts, RR: 29
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
I am Christian too. And an American.

I'm curious which comes first for you? That would help me understand the rest of your positions.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
If two consenting adults want to sign a contract, who cares what any other consenting adults think?

Fine.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
Separation of church and state.

Fine. But I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about me. My vote. You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with. What does that have to do with "separation of church and state". To me, it sounds more like "separation of church and me", and I'm not going to do that just to make you happy. Just like you might vote to endorse same-sex marriage - what does that have to do with "church and state"?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
I don't want the government to tell me how or who or where or when to worship.

Fine.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
It should not matter to the government how or who I worship.

Fine.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
To the government, a marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults and nothing more.

False. It is in the governments best interests to endorse "marriage". Being in a "marriage" is simply a preferred situation for raising a family than not. I believe there are studies done on the benefits of marriage in society as it relates to stability, crime, etc. It has to do with being vested in the life of someone else - the spouse and child - and how the father makes decisions differently based on being married. but it's so far off the point that I don't see the need to start Googling over it. The point is, marriage has a purpose, and its largely revolved around the role of bulding families.

Quoting aloges (Reply 78):
Is an embryo a citizen?

I enjoyed a Facebook blurb the other day. It showed a single cell-like thing and said "If a cell is called Life on Mars, why is a fetus not Life on Earth" or some such. Of course, that doesn't really mean anything but I do find it an interesting juxtaposition.

Total sidenote again, but we enjoyed dinner with some friends from church last night. One of the couple's has a 20 year old daughter going to the University of Washington. She was born premature - at 19 weeks - and is here to show that viability out of the womb can start quite early.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 79):
I hope you understand that many Muslim Americans, Hindu Americans, Atheist Americans, Jewish Americans, etc. feel the same way.

As Clinton said, we're all in this together.

Is that supposed to be some sort of revelation or something? It sort of begs for the "Thank you Captain Obvious" moniker.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 79):
I hope then that you are praying for the upholding of the Constitution's separation of church and state then.

Really? That's what you hope I'm praying for? Actually, I'm quite certain that's what you hope I'm praying for. As a Christian, the most important thing for me to pray for is the separation of church and state. Huh.....

I don't know, Revelation. I think what you are displaying in your comments is the simple-minded, knee-jerk response to one man sharing his point of view, as if I'm trying to change the world. I'm just sharing what I believe and why I - as one man - choose to vote the way I do. It was a defense of sorts to the pounding that Christians take for not throwing their faith out the window.

BTW, I'm not saying that you are simple-minded, or even a jerk, but I guess I see your responses as playing to audience here rather than showing any understanding of what I was saying.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 78):

Is an embryo a citizen?

Are citizens the only people with any rights?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2445 posts, RR: 14
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):

There's still the problem that if membership is dwindling, religious groups tend to turn into sects, with all that radicalization and stuff.

They'll try to get back to their "roots" and their former glory. Being more open-minded in order to get into touch with the citizens? Meh, we don't do that, it's against our spirit.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2445 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 81):
Are citizens the only people with any rights?

Aliens have rights too. 

You're implying that an embryo is a person. Therefore, pregnant women should carry a passport for their unborn. And if somebody kills a woman with a one or two months old fetus, how should we sentence the murderer?

The general rule is that you can only punish somebody if the criminal has acted deliberately. If he did not know the woman was pregnant - this will lead to many interesting court proceedings.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
Being in a "marriage" is simply a preferred situation for raising a family than not.

It's not that simple. Shouldn't infertile people be allowed the benefits of marriage? People past child bearing age?

IMHO it's more about committing to a partner more so than "raising a family".

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
Really? That's what you hope I'm praying for?

Amongst other things too, yes.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):

I don't know, Revelation. I think what you are displaying in your comments is the simple-minded, knee-jerk response to one man sharing his point of view, as if I'm trying to change the world. I'm just sharing what I believe and why I - as one man - choose to vote the way I do. It was a defense of sorts to the pounding that Christians take for not throwing their faith out the window.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is that the writers of the Constitution were probably more religious than you and I are, and very deliberately chose to keep church and state separate because of the problems of having a state religion are legion.

Christians (of which I am one) need to understand that their definition of marriage is not the same one as the state needs to use, because the state is secular and multicultural. Feel free to vote for those representatives who want a more Christian version of marriage, but also don't be surprised if others disagree with that definition and vote against it, as is now the case, given two more states just voted for gay marriage.

Your discontent with this board seems to be that others don't accept your version of marriage, but that's their right. You can get married in a church under whatever rules you want, but in the US those rules don't have to be the ones the government uses, nor should you really expect it in a secular society.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 83):


You're implying that an embryo is a person.

No, Aloges implied that only citizens have the right to life.

And by technical definition, as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg to create a zygote, that organism is a human being.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 83):
And if somebody kills a woman with a one or two months old fetus, how should we sentence the murderer?

That's actually fairly settled law: the federal government and most states have an "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", that basically says anyone who harms or kills an unborn fetus at any stage of development (excluding abortions) is guilty of the same crime had they done it against the mother, and will suffer the same punishments (except for the death penalty, at least in the federal statue)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
It's not that simple. Shouldn't infertile people be allowed the benefits of marriage? People past child bearing age?

IMHO it's more about committing to a partner more so than "raising a family".

It's a twofold issue: it allows for the proper raising of a family; and it allows for other benefits that reduce the likelihood of the government having to step in to care for someone (since theoretically, that's what the partner is for).



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 81):

Are citizens the only people with any rights?

To more people than you might think, yes. A lot of the defense of the legality of unsupervised drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, and other legally unusual actions taken from the War on Terror revolves around "wake me up when they do it to an American citizen" and now that something close to that has happened it's moved to "he's not a real American citizen." Now make no mistake, you can probably justify some of these actions for other reasons, but a lot of people seem to think that rights are things for Americans only to enjoy, and even when they aren't doing it in a legal sense a lot of rhetoric about foreign policy implicitly suggests that American lives are the only ones that matter and if the right to stay alive is not one that should be universally respected I don't know any rights that should. See also: Benghazi consulate furor a little while ago where the civil war, Libyan security elements, and really anything apart from those particular four American lives is less than relevant.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1856 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):
You want to be in a loving same sex relationship, fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through marriage?

You don't have to. See, it's this thing called a "right." This is something "Christians" (and apparently you really haven't quite got Christ's message down pat just yet) like you don't get.

Christ wanted you to live by his philosophy and to EVANGELIZE the world. He did NOT want you to LEGISLATE the world. You know, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that?

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then you don't marriage someone of the same sex. If you don't believe in abortion, you don't get an abortion. If you don't believe in contraception, you don't use contraception. If you don't believe in porn, you don't download it. What you are saying has a perfectly logical conclusion:

"You want to worship Buddha, that's fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through allowing you to build a temple?"

In other words, you have it all wrong. There are religions such as Buddhism, where same-sex marriage checks out just fine. Who are you to tell them that they can't practice their religion as they see fit? What would Jesus have to say about it? Oh yeah... he had nothing at all to say about homosexuality. In fact, it was probably pretty openly practiced in his time.

You're exactly the people we're talking about. You try to sound reasonable because you think you are. But you aren't there just yet. As soon as you realize that Jesus's basic message was: "Live and let live," you'll have made it.

[Edited 2012-11-09 10:40:44]

User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
No, Aloges implied that only citizens have the right to life.

There is no other way to put this, dear moderators:

Bullshit!

You're twisting my words far beyond their breaking point.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 81):
Are citizens the only people with any rights?

Pyrex was calling unborn babies "parties" that are capable of "consenting" to other people's actions:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 76):
Libertarianism is about freedom as long as it affects only you and other consenting parties. Once your freedom starts encroaching on someone else's (in this case an unborn baby) then rules come into play.

An embryo falls under Pyrex's definition of "unborn baby", since he opposes all abortions:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 70):
Being against abortion is the only possible libertarian position. You decided to have unprotected sex despite being fully aware of the potential consequences, you deal with them, don't take it out on an innocent fetus. You were the one getting shagged, not him.

However, you will never find an embryo that is capable of consenting to anything - they aren't life forms, simply because they are incapable of living. Unlike fetuses, embryos are not yet human beings, but only as such will they have human rights.
The capability of conscientiously accepting or rejecting someone else's actions, which defines a citizen and was ascribed by Pyrex to all unborn babies, develops long after birth. He could explain the concept to a toddler all day long, but the child would still return to the person that provides for him/her.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2445 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1856 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
No, Aloges implied that only citizens have the right to life.

He asked if embryos were citizen.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
And by technical definition, as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg to create a zygote, that organism is a human being.

That's not what I have learned at university.

A little experiment: Do not think of embryos, pregnancies, abortion, rape and all other keywords in that relevant context. Then you just answer the question: "What constitutes a human being?". And then you'll use your very own definition to test if an embryo is a human being.

To make it easier, you can also ask a friend or even a complete stranger what a human being is. Just don't tell what you're using his or her answer for.

I just asked a young woman on the chat. My impression is that she's very intelligent, and for my standards, she is a very religious person (Lutheran).

- Anyone born by a woman with a human set of genes. It does not matter if there has been an artificial insemination.
- A driveling, severely disabled person is also a human being.

None of these answers say that embryos or foeti/fetii/feta are human beings. The first answer specifically says that a human being must be already born. The second one targets the dying and disabled, relating to the end of a human being's existence.

I love doing these thought experiments myself.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):
That's actually fairly settled law: the federal government and most states have an "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", that basically says anyone who harms or kills an unborn fetus at any stage of development (excluding abortions) is guilty of the same crime had they done it against the mother, and will suffer the same punishments (except for the death penalty, at least in the federal statue)

Fairly settled? That's how you do it in the U.S., but such a law wouldn't stand a chance before our Constitutional Courts. The concept is that a reasonable person should be able to know if something is punishable or not. It seems perverse, but it is fairly settled here that you should always know beforehand if your action will kill one person or two. We don't have a "Just don't do any wrong, that way you'll stay out of prison" philosophy. We prefer to know to which extent one will be punished if I do X or Y or Z. Legal certainty, that's it.

A prerequisite of guilt is that you actually know what is wrong and what is right. It is wrong to kill a woman. But you can't be guilty of killing the unborn child if you do not know of its existence.

Because a perpetrator can't know beforehand if the woman is pregnant or not, it is essentially a lottery how long he'll stay in prison. This gives women a better protection than men - which they do not deserve.


David


Edit: I've changed some phrases.

[Edited 2012-11-09 10:53:58]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 633 posts, RR: 5
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 85):

And by technical definition, as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg to create a zygote, that organism is a human being.

What technical definition? You can't possibly throw a statement out there without citing at least 5 different (reputable) sources that show a consensus on a definition.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 88):
However, you will never find an embryo that is capable of consenting to anything

Nor will you find a 6-minute old baby that is capable either. Should we allow the killing of those who can't consent?

Quoting aloges (Reply 88):
they aren't life forms, simply because they are incapable of living. Unlike fetuses, embryos are not yet human beings

Science would strongly disagree with you.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 89):
That's not what I have learned at university.

Must've been one of those diploma mills then.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 90):
What technical definition? You can't possibly throw a statement out there without citing at least 5 different (reputable) sources that show a consensus on a definition.

  



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2445 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 91):
Nor will you find a 6-minute old baby that is capable either. Should we allow the killing of those who can't consent?

This has been proposed by some philosophers. 

But the fact remains that being born alive is the best demarcation line between a person and a not-yet-person. It gives us the least headache in ethical, legal and medical terms.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 91):
Science would strongly disagree with you.

Which "science" do you refer to? Because both the sperm and the egg cell were already living, the embryo can never start living at all. But in our discussion, you'll be afraid of a truly biological definition anyway.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 91):
Must've been one of those diploma mills then.

I like your discussion style. It makes for a great entertainment show.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
"If a cell is called Life on Mars, why is a fetus not Life on Earth" or some such. Of course, that doesn't really mean anything but I do find it an interesting juxtaposition.

Total sidenote again, but we enjoyed dinner with some friends from church last night.

Did you eat rocks and sand during the dinner, or was it mostly comprised of stuff that would have been living at some point ? How did you feel about that ?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
Fine. But I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about me. My vote. You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.

Maybe there should be a referendum on such issues ? Because it seems you're saying you'll always vote Republican just because they oppose gay marriage, and don't care about any other policies they might have, including many that go against what Christianity should be about.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 91):
Nor will you find a 6-minute old baby that is capable either.

Ever seen a baby during the post-natal exams? They can certainly object to those.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 91):
Should we allow the killing of those who can't consent?

Who said anything about killing? An abortion of an embryo would amount to killing if the embryo was actually, at least for a limited amount of time, able to survive on its own. You can't kill that which is not yet alive.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 91):
Science would strongly disagree with you.

I would ask you to support that claim, but for some reason I get the feeling that you'd find the request ridiculous... or twist someone else's words again.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

There are both pro and anti-abortion libertarians. There are some who find abortion ok, as long as you don't kill the fetus. This latter group tends to compare a non-lethal abortion to an eviction, like in the case of someone in your home who, for whatever reason, is no longer welcome there and you kick them out. In such cases, you would not be able to kill the person just because you want them out of your house. There are some complications with this theory, though, and I am not sure they can solve them very "cleanly". But at least it shows at least some people are putting their brains to work on the issue, rather than bickering and marketing campaigns.

Personally, as a libertarian, I can see both "right to choose" and "right to life" mixed into this issue. I don't see the killing of an embryo the same as the killing of a human. It's not much different than unplugging someone who will be a vegetable for the rest of their lives. The mind, or soul if you wish, is not in there. And that's what truly makes us human, not just a mere pulse.

On the other hand, late term abortions don't seem right at all. . .

[Edited 2012-11-09 14:25:43]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Interesting viewpoints being offered.

Might be worth a thought experiment on why are children (born or unborn) protected by the law in the first place? Why do parents have a duty under the law to protect something that they brought to life? It's like the old joke where the angry parent tells the teenager "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" LOL.

Before you call me crazy let me say I'm not advocating this. But in ancient Rome, the paterfamilias theoretically had the power of life or death over the rest of his family. You could legally kill your own children (though it was frowned upon by the rest of society and eventually outlawed). So it's not without precedent.

In the absence of religious doctrine, I believe that a rational case could easily be made as to why a person should not be allowed to kill their newborn child. The intellectual rigor of that justification would be the basis for a rationally defensible stance against abortion after some appropriate point in the development process - or at the beginning, for that matter depending on the assumptions and arguments offered.

In a free country any discussion of 'the right of a woman to govern what goes on inside her own body' vs. 'the right of an unborn person to live' should indeed start with the secular argument against killing our kids to begin with. Then at least we might actually get somewhere.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 96):
Interesting viewpoints being offered.

I realise that it's going to sound cheesy, but thank you for a thought-provoking post.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 96):
Why do parents have a duty under the law to protect something that they brought to life?

In most civilised societies, the protection of human life has de iure (and usually de facto, too) become a number one priority. Exceptions to this are, of course, capital punishment and the castle doctrine, but those are issues that desperately need to stay out of this thread. In any case, the protection of the lives of non-criminals is still a number one priority even when capital punishment is in practice.

I think it's only logical for that protection to include everyone, no exceptions, because a deviation from the principle as described by you would lead to a demand for other exceptions. And AFAIK, the Romans saw a murdered slave as lost property, so they definitely had other exceptions.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 96):
In the absence of religious doctrine, I believe that a rational case could easily be made as to why a person should not be allowed to kill their newborn child.

Ooooh, hours and hours of philosophical debate could go into this. "Homo homini lupus est" versus the Golden Rule, the uncertainty about when and where life begins and so on... do you even need to make a case or is it natural to sacrifice everything for the survival of you children?

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 96):
In a free country any discussion of 'the right of a woman to govern what goes on inside her own body' vs. 'the right of an unborn person to live' should indeed start with the secular argument against killing our kids to begin with.

Excellent point, but the kind of free thought that you're suggesting scares the living daylights out of many people because it invariably leads them to the discovery of their own insignificance. It's much easier to believe that your existence is God's will and that He has given you rules by which you must live because he created you.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 727 posts, RR: 14
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 96):
start with the secular argument against killing our kids to begin with

The secular argument against killing kids is the secular morality that murder is wrong, that everyone has a right to self-determination, a right to pursue life, and so forth... and you could add in any number of high minded ideals.

B U T

Being secular, it is by definition man-made. Secular morality is man-made morality, and absent a higher source, it is only a valid moral precept / right / ideal if it shared by a supermajority of the people.

In other words abortion is right or wrong only if society says it is right or wrong, if you take a secular approach. Obviously this changes over time, but the final determination (without a beleif in God) is simply to take a poll on whether it it is ok or not.



Pu


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Considering current fertility rates in our advanced societies, and how many people want to adopt, there is clearly no case for after birth killings (something that happened in China, where the situation was different, but most people would still find it wrong, me included). I'm also against late term abortions unless the fetus has a grave illness, and that is also a very common belief (well, I'm sure most of my fellow citizens have no idea this is legal in some countries). I already said elsewhere that the rare cases of unjustified but legal late term abortions in the US skew the debate in its entirety, and that is mainly caused by the inability for the US Congress to come up with a sensible national law, like many other countries have had for decades.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5488 posts, RR: 13
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):

The ironic thing is that Christianity took off in the early days because of its charity towards others. It represented a change from "an eye for an eye" towards "going the extra mile" and "if he asks for your coat, give him your cloak too". Now it's amazing to me to see people who call themselves Christians to be so uncharitable, and in some cases, hoarders. Martin Luther preached against the greed and opulence of the Church centuries ago, but when I see the opulence and self-indulgence that many "Protestant" Churches represent (especially down South, the home of the "mega-church"), I'm sure Luther would have something to say about it.



This "sea change" came about due to the proselytizing nature of Christianity through the centuries. The religion reached out to the barbarians (Northern European Pagans) sort of akin to our current day "Deliverance Rednecks." In addition a lot of folks from the underclasses became Christians back in the day. I'm not saying that everyone was a churlish barbarian quite far from it. But, a lot of the nasty stuff like the crusades and inquisition were vestiges of the early European barbarian pagan culture. Even some of the Pagan traditions and war attitude became part of the overall religious experience. That's my 2 cents on this.

I can't find it now and I'm pressed for time but someone posted about Reagan and the Bushes getting support from the religious right. Reagan and his ideas were basically the result of that horrid year 1968 when this great nation basically went to hell in a hand-basket (all the assassinations, riots) then morphed into the Watergate era depressing 1970's. Ironically thanks to Republicans being so persona non Grata in the mid 70's post Watergate we got Jimmy "Jihad" Carter who is a Born Again Christian. Well, his administration was not a success, the economy stunk and we had the Iran hostage problem. America needed a change. At that time the Right wing religious right pandered to the masses fears about the decline of the United States, all those "dirty Commie Hippies, fornication (free love) and homosexuality" causing all these problems. Reagan was the great con artist of our time. (at least in my opinion.) Trickle down economics may have sounded interesting on paper but human nature doesn't gel with it's concepts. Many of the rich/big business took the money and ran not re-investing in their companies and or shipping everything off overseas and outsourcing to make even more money. The GOP embraced the Christian right and as they say the rest was history. Also "W" says he's Born Again so the religious right rallied around him and the evil Dick Cheney.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 92):


But the fact remains that being born alive is the best demarcation line between a person and a not-yet-person. It gives us the least headache in ethical, legal and medical terms.

The easy way is not necessarily the right way. And BTW, the subject has switched to medical terms, which does not care whether something is easy or hard to understand. It is what it is.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 92):
Which "science" do you refer to? Because both the sperm and the egg cell were already living, the embryo can never start living at all. But in our discussion, you'll be afraid of a truly biological definition anyway.

Um, 5th grade science?

A sperm carries genetic information from the father, the egg carries genetic information from the mother. When the two meet and successfully merge that information, it results in 26 pairs of chromosomes. Those chromosomal pairs will continue to divide, while creating other cells which divide and grow and divide and grow.... and eventually the organs develop, the fetus grows, and is eventually expelled during the birthing process. It cannot become a duck, it cannot become a bird. It is, and always will be, a member of the species Homo Sapiens. And as long as there's activity consistent and compatible with life, it is alive.

Those are hard facts, you cannot argue them.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5637 posts, RR: 29
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):

It's not that simple. Shouldn't infertile people be allowed the benefits of marriage? People past child bearing age?

Where did I say tha that they couldn't? Or that only people planning to have children could? Or any other nonsense that you are probably going to come back with? I simply shared a viewpoint (elaborated on by someone else further down the thread) on why the government has a compelling reason to provide a marriage option for a man and a woman.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
IMHO it's more about committing to a partner more so than "raising a family".

Well, that's your opinion. It doesn't make it so.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Feel free to vote for those representatives who want a more Christian version of marriage

Uh, thanks for letting me get to vote my conscience. How enlightened of you.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
but also don't be surprised if others disagree with that definition and vote against it

Again, thank you Captain Obvious.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
given two more states just voted for gay marriage.

One of which I live in.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Your discontent with this board seems to be that others don't accept your version of marriage

No, actually my discontent isn't with "this board" but rather the vitriolic nature of some posters when it comes to their views on Christians. I don't expect anyone to change their views based on my personal feelings - heck, it's more like shaking up a hornet's nest - but it had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with "my version" of marriage. I think that might just be a convenient interpretation that you are making because you're not really sure what I think.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):You want to be in a loving same sex relationship, fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through marriage?
You don't have to. See, it's this thing called a "right." This is something "Christians" (and apparently you really haven't quite got Christ's message down pat just yet) like you don't get.

Which is exactly what I said. It's my right. Why are you even arguing what we obviously agree on? I have a vote. You have a vote. We both vote. The outcome is the outcome. It's part of being citizens with rights. Now, did Christ say that I wasn't supposed to vote? Is that what you're saying?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
Christ wanted you to live by his philosophy and to EVANGELIZE the world. He did NOT want you to LEGISLATE the world.

So everyone gets to vote - except Christians? Interesting...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then you don't marriage someone of the same sex. If you don't believe in abortion, you don't get an abortion. If you don't believe in contraception, you don't use contraception. If you don't believe in porn, you don't download it. What you are saying has a perfectly logical conclusion:

"You want to worship Buddha, that's fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through allowing you to build a temple?"

Ok, so again, what are you saying that I am differing on? All I asked was "How can you expect me to vote to endorse something that I don't believe in?" I mean, when you vote, do you do so based on any sort of belief system or personal life philosophy or anything, or is it just random box-checking? I'm just trying to figure out why you think a Christian is supposed to stand down but everyone else get's a vote? And if that's not what you're saying, then I'm at a loss to figure out what you are arguing with me over, because my whole premise revolved around my right to vote my conscience, and how you or anyone could expect me to do differently? I certainly don't expect you to vote differently than your conscience.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
In other words, you have it all wrong.

That's your opinion, and a needlessly condescending one at that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
Who are you to tell them that they can't practice their religion as they see fit?

Where did I say that? Are you referring to me voting? If it's the rule of law, and there is a vote to change the law, what am "I" doing that is different than you or anyone else is doing? How is this different than any other voter-approved initiative? And who get's to decide if not by vote?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
You're exactly the people we're talking about.

I'm frankly surprised after reading many of your posts over time that you are being like this in this dialogue. Exactly what people? A voter? Because that's all I'm talking about. Voting. I'm not telling you you're bad. I'm not telling you you can't have sex with your partner. I'm simply exercising my right to vote my conscience, and asking why anyone would expect me to do differently? What kind of "people" is that? What kind of people are you?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
You try to sound reasonable because you think you are. But you aren't there just yet. As soon as you realize that Jesus's basic message was: "Live and let live," you'll have made it.

I'll pass on the stuff you seem to be handing out. The fact that you can't even grasp the basic point I'm making is frankly disturbing. If you are going to talk to me the way you are and accuse me of being some sort of outcast, please at least restate my points previously posted so I know that you get what I'm saying. Because at the moment, I think you are way off in some netherland getting worked up because I said something that I actually didn't.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 93):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):"If a cell is called Life on Mars, why is a fetus not Life on Earth" or some such. Of course, that doesn't really mean anything but I do find it an interesting juxtaposition.

Total sidenote again, but we enjoyed dinner with some friends from church last night.
Did you eat rocks and sand during the dinner, or was it mostly comprised of stuff that would have been living at some point ? How did you feel about that ?

Seriously? It was a light-hearted, Facebook funny. How did we get to eating rocks and sand???

Quoting Aesma (Reply 93):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):Fine. But I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about me. My vote. You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.
Maybe there should be a referendum on such issues ? Because it seems you're saying you'll always vote Republican just because they oppose gay marriage, and don't care about any other policies they might have, including many that go against what Christianity should be about.

When did I say I'll always vote Republican? I don't even agree with them on a number of things. Frankly, I'm mostly disollusioned by the two party system but don't see much alternative right now. Having said that, there are many non-faith based reasons why I vote the way I do. I'm sure that's true for most Christians just as it's true for most anybody else.

There are many things that I consider when choosing who or what to vote for. If it's a single issue vote, like in our state awhile back voting on whether to have the state close their liquor stores and allow grocery stores to sell hard liquor instead. Either you are for it or against it - not too hard. But as you move up the ladder it gets more and more complicated. By the time we get to President, there is so much to consider and frankly so little chance that either will be particularly successful or even good that I never get excited anyways.

I'm not even all that worked up at all about gay marriage. It's actually an issue that I struggle with because quite frankly I believe that if you are gay that you are born that way (I suppose there could be rare exceptions) and if you are born that way, who am I to say that you can't love someone just like I love someone? But that's not what voting on same-sex marriage is to me. I'm not telling you who you can or can't or should or shouldn't sleep with/be with/live with/etc. I'm simply saying that I don't feel compelled to endorse it by voting for marriage. That's just me, and I accept that you and others disagree.

When I voted for President, I didn't vote based on same-sex marriage. That was way down the list of things I'm worried about with the President. However, in my state we also had same-sex marriage on the ballot. For me, it becomes an endorse/don't endorse decision. I voted my conscience. Is that different than anyone else? Does that somehow void the Constitution? Again, I'm at a loss at the vitriol, but maybe it's just because I'm on a message board and not in a normal conversation between two or more people.

Anyhow, just for my own sake, I'm reposting my original reply below. If there's something that I said in there that I'm missing as offensive or violating church and state or inhibiting the rights of Hindu's or Atheist's, let me know.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):
As a Christian, It's really challenging to get through thread after thread of antiChristian vitriol like is in this thread. I simply cannot relate on a personal level to how horrible I'm supposed to be, or uncharitable, or uncaring, or out of step.

I don't think I'm better than anyone else, nor has that ever been taught at any church I've attended. But I do have core values that are somewhat conflicting to throw out the window because they don't mesh with the current world view. I understand why a non-Christian would feel differently, but seriously, am I missing all the hateful Christians in these threads? Of course you have national leaders on the Christian right who might be inflammatory or in some cases embarrassingly wrong, but you get that with any group. It's just the point of view of the person on the receiving end that defines it.

You want to be in a loving same sex relationship, fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through marriage? There's "staying out of the bedroom" and then there's "endorsing what goes on in the bedroom". The former is something most anyone I know would accept as the way it is. The latter is a little like going against what you believe in. That's just my personal viewpoint.

Anyhow, the Christian Right, as it were, may indeed be done. That has zero to do with being a Christian. Sorry to tell those of you who seem to have such disdain for me as a Christian in America, but we aren't going anywhere. We are praying for our President and other leaders, will honor the rule of law, and will continue to vote our conscience. And we may lose. That's the way it goes.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 101):
And as long as there's activity consistent and compatible with life, it is alive.

I certainly agree. Neither a zygote nor an embryo shows that activity, so they are not yet alive.

[Edited 2012-11-10 01:48:05]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13148 posts, RR: 15
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

For too many Christians, they believe that ending legal Abortion and not allowing Same Gender Marriage/Civil Unions, they will get into 'Heaven' in the afterlife. That is a powerful incentive for some to go even to extremes in violation of Christian teachings to prevent. Growing number are rejecting institutional faith beliefs due to their excesses, their corruption, their support of a particular form of Government, war or just realizing they have no scientific rational as more become more educated.

Another area of the 'Christian Right' that is hurting them now is their excessive influence is over our policies as to Israel and the Middle East/Islamic world. In part too many Christians want to protect Israel, even when they kill or have killed 1000's of Palestinians Christians, have inhumane polices in the occupied territories, to prepare for Armageddon and the return of Christ to assure first dibs to get into heaven. I don't think the majority of the USA is ready to end the world or believes in it by religious reasons.


User currently offlineHOONS90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3036 posts, RR: 52
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
Which is exactly what I said. It's my right. Why are you even arguing what we obviously agree on? I have a vote. You have a vote. We both vote. The outcome is the outcome. It's part of being citizens with rights. Now, did Christ say that I wasn't supposed to vote? Is that what you're saying?

I don't think anyone is arguing that you don't have the right to vote. It just seems rather tyrannical that the issue of minority rights are being put to a popular vote. As if the majority of the people know what it's like to be a gay person...

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
Ok, so again, what are you saying that I am differing on? All I asked was "How can you expect me to vote to endorse something that I don't believe in?" I mean, when you vote, do you do so based on any sort of belief system or personal life philosophy or anything, or is it just random box-checking?

Again, nobody is questioning your right to vote, but perhaps you could be a little bit more conscious of the consequences arising from your vote, and how it affects your fellow citizens (Gays and lesbians are your fellow citizens, too!). If you voted against marriage equality, you did your part in legally depriving your fellow gay citizens from the freedom to marry. Although it is most unfortunate that minority rights are being voted on by the majority, you have every right to vote for or against what you want--inasmuch as we have the right to say that voting against marriage equality is cruel.



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
Well, that's your opinion. It doesn't make it so.

Hmm, should I start calling you Captain Obvious too?

Nah, I'll turn the other cheek.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
That's your opinion, and a needlessly condescending one at that.

Pot, you are black!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
Anyhow, just for my own sake, I'm reposting my original reply below. If there's something that I said in there that I'm missing as offensive or violating church and state or inhibiting the rights of Hindu's or Atheist's, let me know.

Ok, I'll go with:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
You want to be in a loving same sex relationship, fine. But as a Christian, how can you expect me to vote to endorse it through marriage?

IMHO (yes, in my HUMBLE opinion) your desire as expressed through your stated voting choice that the state take the religious definition of marriage leads to a violation of separation of Church and State. IMHO a "turn the other cheek" Christian would be fine with having different definitions of marriage for the church and for the state. The church doesn't want to marry two men or two women? Fine, it doesn't have to. Two men or two women want their marriage recognized by the state? Fine as well. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, give to God what is God's.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 98):
that everyone has a right to self-determination, a right to pursue life, and so forth...

Which I personally believe are the most compelling and sensible justifications for a policy against murder.

Quoting pu (Reply 98):
In other words abortion is right or wrong only if society says it is right or wrong, if you take a secular approach. Obviously this changes over time, but the final determination (without a beleif in God) is simply to take a poll on whether it it is ok or not.


Don't confuse a secular justification for policy with fickle mob rule that changes with the wind. The values of a society can be argued, agreed upon, enshrined in seminal documents (like the US Constitution, in theory) and defended over time.

Relying on belief in God for policy justification is actually much more like taking a poll because not everyone believes in the same God or the same version of a common God, and no other rational justification is required once a religious argument is put forward!

Either way, it is always the case that something is right or wrong because society says so. Whether by the secular arguments that they find most persuasive or the brand of religion that they choose, society selects its morality.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2445 posts, RR: 14
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 96):

This is really thought-provoking. One should always go back to the basics and work from there, instead of assuming the validity of today's moral rules first.

Quoting aloges (Reply 97):
the uncertainty about when and where life begins and so on...

I love to bring up the example of induced pluripotent stem cells. Skin cells can be de-differentiated into embryos, and you can produce human beings without any fertilization. We've already done that with mice. Now when did that life begin?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 101):
Um, 5th grade science?

A sperm carries genetic information from the father, the egg carries genetic information from the mother. When the two meet and successfully merge that information, it results in 26 pairs of chromosomes. Those chromosomal pairs will continue to divide, while creating other cells which divide and grow and divide and grow.... and eventually the organs develop, the fetus grows, and is eventually expelled during the birthing process. It cannot become a duck, it cannot become a bird. It is, and always will be, a member of the species Homo Sapiens. And as long as there's activity consistent and compatible with life, it is alive.

Those are hard facts, you cannot argue them.

Thank you for that lecture.  

Anyway, about 50% of all fertilized egg cells never develop into a fetus and a baby with less that 21 weeks of gestation has never survived outside of its mother.



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5637 posts, RR: 29
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 105):
Again, nobody is questioning your right to vote, but perhaps you could be a little bit more conscious of the consequences arising from your vote, and how it affects your fellow citizens (Gays and lesbians are your fellow citizens, too!).

I'm curious how you presume to know what I am conscious of?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 106):
IMHO (yes, in my HUMBLE opinion) your desire as expressed through your stated voting choice that the state take the religious definition of marriage leads to a violation of separation of Church and State.

I am not the state. I am not the church. I am a citizen voting. That is not a violation of Church and State as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you have a legal basis for feeling that way, which I'm open to.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

Hopefully gay marriage will make it to the courts, where it should be, and subjected to the Constitution. I have a good feeling it will be upheld.

I'm a strong states' rights guy but some things like civil rights should not be determined by majority vote, IMO. I see this as an almost apples to apples comparison to interracial marriage, and I'm sure history will view it the same way, despite the plethora of weak arguments that exist against it now



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineHOONS90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3036 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 109):
I'm curious how you presume to know what I am conscious of?

If you were more conscious about how your vote affects the rights and freedoms of minorities, you would have not voted against marriage equality. Why? Because, well, your vote affects the rights and freedoms of minorities.

If you voted for marriage equality, then I salute you.



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 109):
I am not the state. I am not the church. I am a citizen voting. That is not a violation of Church and State as far as I'm concerned.

Yet you seem to be saying by continuously emphasizing your Christianity that your views are based on those of the Church, and from the outside none of us have any way of knowing if you are not acting based on what the Church says, and that would violate seperation of Church and State.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 109):
Maybe you have a legal basis for feeling that way, which I'm open to.

Nope, not me.

Going back to an earlier post:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
All I asked was "How can you expect me to vote to endorse something that I don't believe in?"

You don't have to, but perhaps if you valued seperation of church and state highly, you might.

Just wondering: how would you vote on a law that would permit all government buildings to display religious symbols, like a Nativity scene, or a menorah, or a crescent?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 103):
I certainly agree. Neither a zygote nor an embryo shows that activity, so they are not yet alive.

An embryo that shows all the signs of healthy development and growth is not compatible with life? Strange.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 108):
a baby with less that 21 weeks of gestation has never survived outside of its mother.

Which is fine: my point is that even you are using the words "survived outside", which implies that it is surviving inside the mother... which means it's alive.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1834 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
The point is, marriage has a purpose, and its largely revolved around the role of bulding families.

Agreed. But you cannot elaborate a secular reason why it shouldn't be extended to same-sex couples.

You cannot. I know you cannot because in 100.0% of court battles so far, the anti-marriage side has been unable to do so. So unless you are *way* smarter than all of them put together, and I doubt that, you cannot.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 110):

Hopefully gay marriage will make it to the courts, where it should be, and subjected to the Constitution. I have a good feeling it will be upheld.

That is exactly what is going to happen.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 110):
I'm a strong states' rights guy but some things like civil rights should not be determined by majority vote, IMO. I see this as an almost apples to apples comparison to interracial marriage, and I'm sure history will view it the same way, despite the plethora of weak arguments that exist against it now

Bingo. You want to talk about weed legalization or building codes? States rights. Want to talk about fundamental civil rights? National rights.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1832 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 108):
This is really thought-provoking. One should always go back to the basics and work from there, instead of assuming the validity of today's moral rules first.

Indeed...because then you realize that most of these seemingly black and white issues are a hell of a lot more complicated.

Quoting aloges (Reply 97):

I think it's only logical for that protection to include everyone, no exceptions, because a deviation from the principle as described by you would lead to a demand for other exceptions. And AFAIK, the Romans saw a murdered slave as lost property, so they definitely had other exceptions.
Quoting aloges (Reply 97):
Ooooh, hours and hours of philosophical debate could go into this. "Homo homini lupus est" versus the Golden Rule, the uncertainty about when and where life begins and so on... do you even need to make a case or is it natural to sacrifice everything for the survival of you children?

Great points, and as I continue my thought experiment I can construct one argument that ends with it being WRONG to terminate a pregnancy at any point in the development cycle. But then comes the question of whether or not a person has the right to dictate what goes on within his/her body, in other words does/should the state have the right to tell you what you can or can't do with yer guts. One may say that even though they believe that a woman should be secure in her person, abortion is an obvious exception because a life is at stake. OK, great...but how far of a leap is it from there to donating an organ to another person in cases where it will save a life? If the state can mandate that a woman continue to gestate her baby against her will while it is in the womb, what is stopping them from mandating that a mother donate a kidney or bone marrow to their child, or to a stranger for that matter. Is that where we want to go?

Again, these issues are complicated because we have competing liberties at stake. It's about time we start talking about issues in these terms rather than holy mandates that not everyone is even obligated to accept as valid.

[Edited 2012-11-10 09:52:35]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1830 times:

http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/bl...-the-ballot-again?directory=100011

Apparently the Christian right isn't quite done yet:

Quote:
Not even allowing the citizens of Maine who find themselves on the right side of history a weekend to celebrate, the Christian Civic League has already started making plans to bring marriage equality back before voters in yet another referendum.

Bring it on. Go ahead. Bring it. In another two or four years, more of today's teenagers will be voting and they are sick of you. But by then SCOTUS will have ruled on it.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 113):
An embryo that shows all the signs of healthy development and growth is not compatible with life? Strange.

I never said that an embryo is incompatible with life. I said that it does not yet show activity that is "consistent and compatible with life", such as a heartbeat or brain functions - because it does not yet posses either organ, at least not in a functional state of development.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
what is stopping them from mandating that a mother donate a kidney

Interesting that you brought this up, it reminded me of the "opt out" method for determining who is a post-mortem organ donor. Several countries have passed legislation that makes anyone a donor unless they have opted out... this is, obviously, very different from forcing a living human being into or out of any sort of medical procedure, but still a bit of an ethical dilemma.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 117):
Interesting that you brought this up, it reminded me of the "opt out" method for determining who is a post-mortem organ donor. Several countries have passed legislation that makes anyone a donor unless they have opted out... this is, obviously, very different from forcing a living human being into or out of any sort of medical procedure, but still a bit of an ethical dilemma.

I don't think so. As long as you are free to opt out, I just don't see the problem. Your body was your property when you are alive. Once you are dead, you don't exist, so it's nobody's.

If you disagree, then opt out. Problem solved.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4288 posts, RR: 6
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):

The real plan to limit abortions should not be to make it illegal. There would be far too many black market abortions. The real solutions are to find ways to help people make the choice of life over abortio

I am a devout Catholic and as such have very strong Pro-Life views. That being said..I think a big mistake that a lot of people of faith make is that they try to push for too much legislation and don't focus enough on changing hearts. I agree that helping women in these tough times and showing them authentic love can go a long way. And this is happening a lot more at the micro-level than people think. The problem becomes is that this great work is often undermined by whackos like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who while their hearts may be in the right place, make their arguments in such a way that turns off more voters than they win over. And I firmly believe this hurt people like Scott Brown and Tommy Thompson as well.

One other thing we failed on is the HHS mandate. I have no problem with Contraception being legal, and to outlaw it is a position I don't think anyone on my side shares. I also believe that there are legitimate medical needs for it other than avoiding pregnancy. No woman should be denied access by their insurance company in this case. However, what we object to is that when a woman wants to avoid pregnancy, there is already a 100 percent reliable method for this. It is called abstinence. If a woman chooses to have sex, then there is always a chance that she will get pregnant. That is biology 101. A lot of people use birth control to reduce the risk of this. That is their choice. But that is not something that should be paid for by anyone but the couple involved. They should know the consequences.

It is true that the Catholic Church itself is opposed to contraception. And there are a lot of good reasons for doing so, many of which can be made without even bringing the Bible or God into play, as they are scientific in nature. The Church has done a poor job of explaining itself on this, even to its own members. There are many good Catholic Women out there who are taking up the job, including Vicki Thorn, Janet Smith, and Crystallina Evert. These are the ones to deliver the message.

As for the Christian Right in general....they need to show more love and compassion, and also respect the rights of others who don't share their beleifs. But they should still let their beliefs guide them in their decision making. If they can adopt that, along with a willingness to listen to the other side....they will be around for a long time. However, if they continue to show hardness of heart to other people...they will continue to lose influence, and that opens the door to some people with even harder hearts running this country. And that is truly scary.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 119):
However, what we object to is that when a woman wants to avoid pregnancy, there is already a 100 percent reliable method for this. It is called abstinence.

This is factually incorrect.

When the reliability of a method of contraception is calculated, it is calculated assuming real-world use. Abstinence is not 100.0% effective.

First of all, fact is that people do not stay abstinent. And in a time when there are other options for family planning, they should have access to those options, including those that require a prescription. If you take 100 couples and have them promise to use abstinence as their sole method of birth control, you will find that the failure rate is around 40-50%.

Second, even those who DO stay abstinent might still get raped. Rape is shockingly common even in this country and it does cause pregnancy.

Finally, there is a logical fallacy here, which is that people who do not wish to get pregnant should just keep their legs shut. Well, guess what?

Quoting apodino (Reply 119):
It is true that the Catholic Church itself is opposed to contraception. And there are a lot of good reasons for doing so, many of which can be made without even bringing the Bible or God into play, as they are scientific in nature.

No, that's not true, actually. I've heard those "scientific" arguments and I'm a medical professional and a trained scientist and they are all dead wrong. This is exactly the problem that is happening in the Religious Right. They deny objective reality. Birth control does NOT cause breast cancer (well, no more than abstinence does). It does NOT cause ovarian cancer. It does NOT cause divorce (as the Church has claimed). These are all "chopstick" correlations.*

The Church is going to have to stop trying to dictate reality. The belief that you can dictate reality is what lost the Right this election and it is going to make old religions increasingly irrelevant in the modern world if they don't get with the program. To quote Galileo (a very apt quote): "It still goes around."

*A "chopstick" correlation is the example in which people with brown eyes are statistically more likely to be good at using chopsticks. While the correlation exists, it is solely because the regions of the world where chopsticks are traditionally used have almost 100% brown eyes.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4288 posts, RR: 6
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 120):
This is factually incorrect.

When the reliability of a method of contraception is calculated, it is calculated assuming real-world use. Abstinence is not 100.0% effective.

First of all, fact is that people do not stay abstinent. And in a time when there are other options for family planning, they should have access to those options, including those that require a prescription. If you take 100 couples and have them promise to use abstinence as their sole method of birth control, you will find that the failure rate is around 40-50%.

Ok then...name one woman who didn't have sex and who didn't want to get pregnant who actually got pregnant?

Also...are you aware that the Catholic Church allows for Fertility Awareness Method, or natural family planning, which is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as any other contraceptive? My wife's doctor is trained in this method, and can use the info from charts to help women diagnose other problems.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 120):

No, that's not true, actually. I've heard those "scientific" arguments and I'm a medical professional and a trained scientist and they are all dead wrong. This is exactly the problem that is happening in the Religious Right. They deny objective reality. Birth control does NOT cause breast cancer (well, no more than abstinence does). It does NOT cause ovarian cancer. It does NOT cause divorce (as the Church has claimed). These are all "chopstick" correlations.*

The funny thing is that many people I know who are Doctors don't agree with you, and agree with the research that has been done. The US Government has classified some types of birth control as Carcinogens. Also...there are now lawyers out there who are filing class action lawsuits against the drug companies due to health problems that arose from their birth control.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 122, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

The catholic church is opposed to contraception but not to family planning. So they tell you to use the temperature method and silly things like that, that ensure you'll have 10 kids.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4288 posts, RR: 6
Reply 123, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 122):
The catholic church is opposed to contraception but not to family planning. So they tell you to use the temperature method and silly things like that, that ensure you'll have 10 kids.

That is a mischaracterization of what the church teaches. The Church does not teach ever married couple should have 10 kids. The church teaches that every couple should use its discretion and take into account its own situation when deciding to have kids or not. If there is a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy (such as financial issues), the church does allow the couples to avoid pregnancy via the NFP method.

And the Basal Body temp method you refer to is one of many methods out there. There is the Creighton Model, the sympto-thermal method, and the Billings ovulation method. Again, it is up to the couple to decide what works best for them.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 124, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 123):
If there is a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy (such as financial issues), the church does allow the couples to avoid pregnancy via the NFP method.

Which is such a logical fallacy, because there is no difference between using this method to intentionally avoid pregnancy than there is with using OCP's or a diaphragm. The end result is that the sperm do not find an egg, so why does it matter from God's point of view?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 125, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Welp, there they go!

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/na...igsinaftergaymarriageadvances.html

Quote:
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican is digging in after gay marriage initiatives scored big wins this week in the U.S. and Europe, vowing to never stop insisting that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

In a front-page article in Saturday's Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, the Holy See sought to frame itself as the lone voice of courage in opposing initiatives to give same-sex couples legal recognition. In a separate Vatican Radio editorial, the pope's spokesman asked sarcastically why gay marriage proponents don't now push for legal recognition for polygamous couples as well.

I'm wondering how long it will be before some loud-mouthed Cardinal calls for concentration camps for gays. They actually have in Uganda where they supported the "Kill the Gays" law, but because it's in Uganda, it doesn't get much attention outside of Africa. Admittedly, they didn't actually call for "concentration camps," but the result is similar. Round 'em up and kill 'em.

It's easy to stay calm and rational about this...until it's actually you personally that they're talking about rounding up and killing.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 126, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 98):
it is only a valid moral precept / right / ideal if it shared by a supermajority of the people.

Taking a vote completely fails to take into account Tyranny of the Majority and is thus an inappropriate measure of what justice, let alone morality, is.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
Also...are you aware that the Catholic Church allows for Fertility Awareness Method, or natural family planning, which is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as any other contraceptive? My wife's doctor is trained in this method, and can use the info from charts to help women diagnose other problems.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 124):
Which is such a logical fallacy, because there is no difference between using this method to intentionally avoid pregnancy than there is with using OCP's or a diaphragm. The end result is that the sperm do not find an egg, so why does it matter from God's point of view?

Exactly, it's just preposterous from a logical standpoint. Utter hooey.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 128, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
Ok then...name one woman who didn't have sex and who didn't want to get pregnant who actually got pregnant?

Mary ?

Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
which is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as any other contraceptive?

I'm sure it is, as long as you don't try to prove it scientifically.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 126):
Taking a vote completely fails to take into account Tyranny of the Majority and is thus an inappropriate measure of what justice, let alone morality, is.

Well, not taking a vote will not solve anything either. And if a strong majority wants something but the minority gets precedence, then you get tyranny of the minority, hardly better.

In the case of abortion, on the one end you impose something on all women, on the other you let them chose. Which one is tyrannical ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4288 posts, RR: 6
Reply 129, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 128):
In the case of abortion, on the one end you impose something on all women, on the other you let them chose. Which one is tyrannical ?

No one is imposing anything. Any woman has the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. We all agree on that.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 127):
Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
Also...are you aware that the Catholic Church allows for Fertility Awareness Method, or natural family planning, which is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as any other contraceptive? My wife's doctor is trained in this method, and can use the info from charts to help women diagnose other problems.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 124):
Which is such a logical fallacy, because there is no difference between using this method to intentionally avoid pregnancy than there is with using OCP's or a diaphragm. The end result is that the sperm do not find an egg, so why does it matter from God's point of view?

Exactly, it's just preposterous from a logical standpoint. Utter hooey.

Some people to the right of me actually use that argument against NFP, these are people like the Duggars. But there is a huge difference. In one case...the couple is intentionally sterilizing their sexual act. In another case, nothing the couple is doing is sterilizing their act. Although the couple realizes that their sexual act is most likely not going to result in pregnancy, they are still open to life and will accept a child if they are so blessed. In the case of contraception, we believe that any barrier method used in the marital act also puts an artificial barrier between the couple, which prevents the couple from giving themselves fully and freely to each other in such an act. The same can also be said of the Pill. In a sense, what the couple is saying to each other is "I give myself to you, except my fertility, you can't have that" which is not fruitful, and is not a total gift of self. In terms of the Pill...you are taking what is an otherwise healthy female body, and a system which is working perfectly and using medicine to stop it from working the way nature designed it to. As a human, who believes in natural law, when you start taking parts of the human body that work perfectly, and use medicine to stop them from working properly, that is dangerous territory to be in.

Christopher West is a catholic author who has written extensively on this subject. Even if you don't agree with the teachings of the church, I would recommend his books as he presents his arguments in a non combtative, and compassionate way for even those who don't agree with him.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 128):

Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
which is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as any other contraceptive?

I'm sure it is, as long as you don't try to prove it scientifically.

I don't have to...a lot of people already have done it to my satisfaction.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 125):

I'm wondering how long it will be before some loud-mouthed Cardinal calls for concentration camps for gays. They actually have in Uganda where they supported the "Kill the Gays" law, but because it's in Uganda, it doesn't get much attention outside of Africa. Admittedly, they didn't actually call for "concentration camps," but the result is similar. Round 'em up and kill 'em.

It's easy to stay calm and rational about this...until it's actually you personally that they're talking about rounding up and killing.

You actually believe the Catholic Church would support concentration camps? That is absurd. It is true that the catholic church doesn't believe that Same Sex marriage is possible, but that being said they have never sought to persecute those who don't share that view, and still show them the same support that they would show any other being. We love the sinners (And despite what you may believe, we as cathoilcs believe that every single person who goes to church is a sinner, which is why we go to church in the first place), but we don't love the sins. To suggest that the Church would even support such awful things is insane, and if they ever did then I would actually question my allegiance to the Catholic Church.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 130, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 129):
As a human, who believes in natural law, when you start taking parts of the human body that work perfectly, and use medicine to stop them from working properly, that is dangerous territory to be in.

When a cold kills you, nature is working perfectly too. I'd rather take my chances with medicine.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11734 posts, RR: 15
Reply 131, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
I'm curious which comes first for you? That would help me understand the rest of your positions.

They are equal but separate. When a referendum is on the ballot, I look at it from the point of who is sponsoring it and how it will effect a consenting adult couple?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.

So, you disagree with allowing certain consenting adults to sign contracts. In the country where freedom is everything but only allowed for some. That's what it sounds like to me.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
The point is, marriage has a purpose, and its largely revolved around the role of bulding families.

Adoptees? Two men or two women are perfectly capable of raising children as well as a male/female couple. Studies show that. Not the right-wing Christian sponsered studies, but moderate, independant studies. From all over the world.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 132, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
Adoptees? Two men or two women are perfectly capable of raising children as well as a male/female couple. Studies show that. Not the right-wing Christian sponsered studies, but moderate, independant studies. From all over the world.

   Single parents do this successfully all the time (though it is harder.) If one parent can do it, why can't two? Even if they are the same sex?

Don't worry Seb, this notion that gay parents cannot raise offspring is dying out. Can't speak for everyone, but it seems that my age group (exact age) seems to be generally in favor of it, and a few years younger seems to be way more in favor of it. Tolerance is rapidly increasing. I think it'll reach the courts first, but if not, the simple majority will legalize A LOT in our life times



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 133, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 129):
You actually believe the Catholic Church would support concentration camps? That is absurd.

The Church has a long history of gross inhumanity to man. Why do you suppose it maintained dungeons and instruments of torture? Have you never heard of the Spanish inquisition? Why do you suppose it initially supported the Nazi regime (although ultimately opposed it)? The Church has a long trail of bloody footprints behind it.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...ays-bill/politics/2012/06/11/41218

However, the Ugandan Catholic Church (not the Vatican) has supported this bill, which amounts to rounding up all the Gays and killing them. While not "concentration camps," per se, the result is that people get rounded up and killed. When you're one of those people, a concentration camp or lack thereof is not really that important.

In the US, the rhetoric has been less extreme, but then again, it would be given the potential backlash against a Catholic official supporting such a policy. Not that this stopped the Archbishop Timothy Dolan from comparing gay marriage with communism.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
Fine. But I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about me. My vote. You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.

Actually, no. I'm not asking you to vote. I'm happy there was a vote, but I think of it more as a "poll." Fact is that nobody gets to vote on rights. That's why they're called "rights."

But I disagree with your religion. Do I get to vote to ban it? No? Good. You don't get to vote to ban my marriage. See, that's how "rights" work.

Quoting apodino (Reply 129):
Some people to the right of me actually use that argument against NFP, these are people like the Duggars. But there is a huge difference. In one case...the couple is intentionally sterilizing their sexual act. In another case, nothing the couple is doing is sterilizing their act.

Having sex when sperm can't contact an egg is sterilizing the act. It does not matter how you do it. I would actually try to lead you down the chain of logic that shows that this is true, but you won't follow because at some point you'd have to abandon your religion. You won't do that (although following logical chains is why I did abandon mine...round about age 6), so I won't.

Fact is that you either believe that all sex should be done for the purpose of reproduction or you believe that it is permissible to do it recreationally. If you believe in the latter, then it is a logical fallacy to oppose any sort of contraception.

Quoting apodino (Reply 129):
I don't have to...a lot of people already have done it to my satisfaction.

Not to mine. And I am a trained scientist. The typical-use failure rate of calendar and basal temp-based methods is approximately 25% per year. That means that out of four couples using this, one will get pregnant. By contrast, for couples using hormonal contraception. For perfect use, certain methods may be as effective as 88%, meaning that approximately one out of ten couples using it will have a failure. But perfect use is not a good metric because it assumes that humans are perfect.

Typical use effectiveness of birth control pill is 92%. But for non-pill methods, it's closer to 99.7%.

The Church claims that rhythm methods are as effective as pills, but they compare perfect use of their method to typical use of the pill. That's so dishonest, it's basically lying.

Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
Ok then...name one woman who didn't have sex and who didn't want to get pregnant who actually got pregnant?

I can't name them because it would violate my Hippocratic Oath (and HIPAA) but I have seen more than one teenage girl get pregnant from rape. Some aborted; others delivered. Including a Catholic 13yo who was raped by her 14yo brother. Of course the family wouldn't even consider abortion (which I respect) and so I was there at the delivery. We immediately admitted him to the NICU for close observation, but he seemed perfectly healthy in spite of the consanguinity. I do wonder what the family will tell the child when he asks who his father is; I'm glad it isn't my question to answer.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5637 posts, RR: 29
Reply 134, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 110):
Hopefully gay marriage will make it to the courts, where it should be, and subjected to the Constitution. I have a good feeling it will be upheld.


I'm a strong states' rights guy but some things like civil rights should not be determined by majority vote, IMO. I see this as an almost apples to apples comparison to interracial marriage, and I'm sure history will view it the same way, despite the plethora of weak arguments that exist against it now

At least it will be decided.

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 111):
If you were more conscious about how your vote affects the rights and freedoms of minorities,

How do you know that I'm not conscious of the affects of my vote - for anything? It can be rhetorical, because it doesn't really matter. It just seems presumptuous of you to tell me how I think/feel about something or someone.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
Yet you seem to be saying by continuously emphasizing your Christianity that your views are based on those of the Church, and from the outside none of us have any way of knowing if you are not acting based on what the Church says, and that would violate seperation of Church and State.

The only reason I bring up my Christianity is because these threads become so rantingly anti-Christian that I chose to share my two cents. It's pretty much defense anyhow - do you see anyone standing with me? No, it's pretty much shouting down the Christian guy who happens to feel differently.

But are you suggesting that because I use my faith as a moral compass versus the wind or astrology or someone else's opinion, that my vote shouldn't count because it violates Church and State? Give me a break. If something is on the ballot, I have a moral obligation to vote my conscience. Would you do any differently? What business is it of yours (or mine) what motivation someone has when they color in the circle? It's their vote.

As far as my church goes, I've never been told how to vote. Ever. We are told to vote according to biblical teachings and to be very prayerful going into it, but that's it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):All I asked was "How can you expect me to vote to endorse something that I don't believe in?"
You don't have to, but perhaps if you valued seperation of church and state highly, you might.

If you don't want me to vote on it, don't put it up for a vote. That seems pretty simple. It's pretty hard for me to imagine I'm somebody else when I cast my vote. Maybe I should just send it to you so that you can fill it in - oh, but wait, you're a Christian. Your vote doesn't count, because how do we know that the church isn't telling you how to vote?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 114):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):The point is, marriage has a purpose, and its largely revolved around the role of bulding families.
Agreed. But you cannot elaborate a secular reason why it shouldn't be extended to same-sex couples.

You cannot. I know you cannot because in 100.0% of court battles so far, the anti-marriage side has been unable to do so. So unless you are *way* smarter than all of them put together, and I doubt that, you cannot.

I'm certainly not way smarter, and I don't presume to be the brightest bulb regardless. I also won't argue your point, as there probably isn't a convincing secular argument against same-sex marriage. I gave my understanding of the benefits of "traditional" marriage, but in a secular society that may not hold up against other points-of-view. I fully accept (as in my home state of Washington) that same-sex marriage is becoming a more supported concept and that as time goes by that it will continue to spread throughout the country. If it is law, I accept it.

Quoting apodino (Reply 119):
The problem becomes is that this great work is often undermined by whackos like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who while their hearts may be in the right place, make their arguments in such a way that turns off more voters than they win over.

Fo' rizzle.

Quoting apodino (Reply 119):
As for the Christian Right in general....they need to show more love and compassion, and also respect the rights of others who don't share their beleifs. But they should still let their beliefs guide them in their decision making. If they can adopt that, along with a willingness to listen to the other side....they will be around for a long time.

Thanks for finally showing up to the party in this thread. Too bad it's somewhat of an Alamo scenario if you are a Christian.

Quoting apodino (Reply 121):
Also...are you aware that the Catholic Church allows for Fertility Awareness Method, or natural family planning, which is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as any other contraceptive?

I know someone (Seventh Day Adventist) who never used condoms - he always followed one of these methods (I don't know which one, but I know he wasn't a father the last time I saw him). I think it is going to be a big challenge for most people to actually follow and be successful at. How many times have you had unprotected sex intentionally and STILL not been able to control yourself. Imagine it being forbidden - that's a nightmare scenario for someone not wanting to get pregnant.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
oting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):I'm curious which comes first for you? That would help me understand the rest of your positions.
They are equal but separate. When a referendum is on the ballot, I look at it from the point of who is sponsoring it and how it will effect a consenting adult couple?

If, as a Christian, you put country on a level playing field in making life choices, then I am confused by your definition of Christian. But I'm fine with that. I just always believed that, while you honor the rule of law, you certainly don't need to endorse or otherwise support things that contradict biblical teachings. In other words, if the rule of law says soemthing is legal, fine. That doesn't mean that if given a vote on it that I have to throw my Christian beliefs out the window. But you certainly aren't alone in seeing it differently.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80): You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.
So, you disagree with allowing certain consenting adults to sign contracts. In the country where freedom is everything but only allowed for some. That's what it sounds like to me.

I don't remember saying that at all.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):The point is, marriage has a purpose, and its largely revolved around the role of bulding families.
Adoptees? Two men or two women are perfectly capable of raising children as well as a male/female couple. Studies show that. Not the right-wing Christian sponsered studies, but moderate, independant studies. From all over the world.

I know a lesbian couple with kids (I don't know any gay couples with kids personally). It's actually a family member. The children are very loved by the woman family member, but her partner was much more detached and they have since had an ugly split (I guess it would have been an ugly divorce had they married). They were not adopted, but rather were invitro's from a donor. So I guess my point is that I'm well aware of what you are saying.

It really is an unfortunate point to argue (for me) because it will never come to a consensus. I will say "I think a mom and a dad are better for the children" and you'll say "So if the dad beats the mom up, you'll think that's better?". Ya, uh huh, that's exactly what I'm saying.   It just will never come to a point of agreement, so what's the point?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):Fine. But I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about me. My vote. You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.
Actually, no. I'm not asking you to vote. I'm happy there was a vote, but I think of it more as a "poll." Fact is that nobody gets to vote on rights. That's why they're called "rights."

But I disagree with your religion. Do I get to vote to ban it? No? Good. You don't get to vote to ban my marriage. See, that's how "rights" work.

I suppose if my religion was on a ballot, you'd get a vote.

Anyhow, I feel like I would probably be best to stop where I'm at. I feel like I've only attracted negative attention, which I'm not really into, and I don't want to be disrespectful by sharing my views over and over when they aren't really contributing anything or might even be hurtful. I certainly don't mean it that way, and I never even intended to get into the whole same-sex debate so much as stand up for Christians for voting based on their beliefs - just like anyone else.

Not that you care I'm sure, but I certainly don't look at you or anyone differently for pursuing same-sex marriage, being in such a marriage, or anything else. I think love is probably one of the best gifts of life and to tell someone who they can or can't love seems so wrong on so many levels. If the law states that you should be allowed to marry, then that's the law and I certainly am not going to spend much time worrying about it, as I don't necessarily have a lot of emotion over it. That I feel differently is unfortunate but also moot - as you and everyone keeps stating, Christians are increasingly irrelevent in our secular society and already there are states that have passed same-sex marriage laws.

So, carryon with whatever dialogue you were having before I showed up. It will probably be a lot more enjoyable now.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 129):
Although the couple realizes that their sexual act is most likely not going to result in pregnancy, they are still open to life and will accept a child if they are so blessed. In the case of contraception, we believe that any barrier method used in the marital act also puts an artificial barrier between the couple, which prevents the couple from giving themselves fully and freely to each other in such an act. The same can also be said of the Pill. In a sense, what the couple is saying to each other is "I give myself to you, except my fertility, you can't have that" which is not fruitful, and is not a total gift of self.

Leave it to religion to obfuscate something as seemingly natural and straightforward as sex by loading it up with so much baggage. These people could literally ruin a wet dream. I honestly feel sorry for you because you're being abused in the worst kind of way yet you seem to be happy about it.

This 'reduced intimacy' / 'not a total gift of self' line of reasoning is a clever appeal to a different part of the brain, now that the Church realizes that their followers aren't buying the autocratic "you better not mess with God's plan" approach. Instead they're tapping into the 21st Century phenomenon of constant self-evaluation and self-doubt and have actually convinced people that intimacy with another person is not quite as worthy or valid unless it involves the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Let's take this Catholic nightmare to the most joyously twisted extreme, shall we? Suppose a man has contracted AIDS by accident in the course of his charity medical work. The Church can't possibly conjure up a reason to call that man sinful. Should he not wear a condom to protect his wife from this horrible disease? Is their physical expression of love somehow less worthwhile because she isn't "offering him her fertility" or whatever the hell you said above? Should their days of physical intimacy be over?

Quoting apodino (Reply 129):
In terms of the Pill...you are taking what is an otherwise healthy female body, and a system which is working perfectly and using medicine to stop it from working the way nature designed it to. As a human, who believes in natural law, when you start taking parts of the human body that work perfectly, and use medicine to stop them from working properly, that is dangerous territory to be in.

Concern about messing with the body's chemistry is legitimate, but a completely different issue...a condom or diaphragm completely negates this concern. Again, the Church will pursue whatever line of reasoning necessary to achieve compliance.


User currently offlineHOONS90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3036 posts, RR: 52
Reply 136, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1843 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
How do you know that I'm not conscious of the affects of my vote - for anything? It can be rhetorical, because it doesn't really matter. It just seems presumptuous of you to tell me how I think/feel about something or someone.

Of course it matters, unless if you're voting just for the heck of it.

You think I am presumptuous in saying that you weren't conscious about the affects(sic) of your vote? Let's assume that you were indeed conscious about the effects of your vote. That would mean that you knowingly caused harm and detriment to your fellow minority citizens by doing your part in preventing them from having the same rights as you. Isn't that actually worse than ignorance?

if you really felt nicely about your fellow gay and lesbian citizens, would you have done them such a huge disservice?

If you voted against marriage equality, what else is there to infer other than that you don't think sexual minorities deserve the same rights as you do? That's presumptuous to you?



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12759 posts, RR: 25
Reply 137, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133):
Actually, no. I'm not asking you to vote. I'm happy there was a vote, but I think of it more as a "poll." Fact is that nobody gets to vote on rights. That's why they're called "rights."

Seems to me that this is the right way to look at it. That's what happened in Massachusetts - the Court decided it was a right, and that was that.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
The only reason I bring up my Christianity is because these threads become so rantingly anti-Christian that I chose to share my two cents

I see the anti-Christianity, but I also see that in similar degrees in real life. If you interview a cross section around here, you'll find the devout, and you'll find those vehimently against Christianity and all other forms of religion, and everything in between. I think the main difference is that fora are anonymous so you tend to get more rants here.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
But are you suggesting that because I use my faith as a moral compass versus the wind or astrology or someone else's opinion, that my vote shouldn't count because it violates Church and State?

What is the difference between the Church telling a person how to vote, vs the Church strongly influencing the way a person votes?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
I know someone (Seventh Day Adventist) who never used condoms - he always followed one of these methods (I don't know which one, but I know he wasn't a father the last time I saw him). I think it is going to be a big challenge for most people to actually follow and be successful at.

I've kind of missed what the whole point of this is? I don't see the difference between having planned sex during periods of infertility versus having sex using a contraceptive device or drug. In both cases the lack of conception is a planned outcome.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11734 posts, RR: 15
Reply 138, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
It just will never come to a point of agreement, so what's the point?

I am trying to get you to understand the separation of church and state. I am trying to get you to understand this is a secular nation, not a Christian nation. So, when the secular government has a contract that can be signed by only a certain per centage of consenting adults instead of all consenting adults, like a marriage contract, that is discrimination and has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the church. The church can not give tax credits for married couples. The church can not give survivor benefits. The church can not extend health benefits to partners. If the church chooses to not recognize the contract entered into by two consenting adults, fine. If that's what they want to do, they can do that. But, the church should not be trying to stop a government contract between two consenting adults.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
I am confused by your definition of Christian.

I vote keeping in mind this is a secular nation where all types of religions are allowed. I do not want anyone taking away my rights as a Christian.

One thing I don't get is: if we are a Christian nation, what is the national religion? Catholic? Methodist? Mormon? Do we kick out all the Presbytirians and Jehovah's Witnesses? Do we persecute the Adventists and Jews until they all leave? Do we all convert to whatever the national religion is? What if we don't want to convert?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
I don't remember saying that at all.

When you said:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 80):
You are asking me - as a person - to vote to endorse something that I disagree with.

To me sound like you are voting for the church and Christian religion instead of the secular govenrment.

I would like to give you props for keeping it civil!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 139, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
Anyhow, I feel like I would probably be best to stop where I'm at.

Right before the bit where you respond to how abstinence is not as effective as the Church would want you think? Or the bit where the church lies about how effective rhythm methods are?

This is my issue with religious believers. When you finally show them proof positive that it ain't necessarily so, they just walk away. So clearly, it's not truth that motivates them. What it is, I don't know.

I, for one, am a seeker of truth, whether I like that truth or not.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
That I feel differently is unfortunate but also moot - as you and everyone keeps stating, Christians are increasingly irrelevent in our secular society and already there are states that have passed same-sex marriage laws.

And the reason that "Christians" are increasingly irrelevant is because they've gone way off-message. You could do some serious self-evaluation about the high ideals you were taught in Sunday school when you were 6 and pursue that religion.

I don't hate or even oppose Christianity, per se. Unless someone is using it as a weapon against me, which is what you do when you vote "no" on gay marriage because you're "Christian."


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25455 posts, RR: 86
Reply 140, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 139):
I don't hate or even oppose Christianity, per se. Unless someone is using it as a weapon against me, which is what you do when you vote "no" on gay marriage because you're "Christian."

To be honest, I wrestle with the idea. I would certainly vote in favour of same-sex marriage - as a right - and perhaps even fight for it, but it isn't something to which I aspire.

If two men or two women want to get married, bless 'em, why not? Certainly they should be able to do so, but the present mood of the gay media seems to be that we should all aspire to marriage - that a life-long, arguably monogamous, partnership should be my "norm" of aspiration, in line with Andrew Sullivan's famous essay that we are "virtually normal."

I'm not "virtually normal" - nor do I want to be - and love is another issue. I am not looking for a husband - nor a wife. I am happily, even proudly, queer, and my queerness has meant that I've had to carve out a different path in the world. It has had its very negative aspects, but it has also given me tremendous bonuses, the rough and the smooth, and I would not change any aspect of it.

Same with abortion. Again, I would vote for abortion - as a right - but I have some real problems with the idea of it. It isn't an "issue" for me. I don't think I've ever made a woman pregnant (although i can't swear to that), and I would certainly not stand in the way of it. But I have those problems with it which don't go away.

And so with Christianity - or any religion. If people need to believe all that supernatural stuff, I fully support their right to believe whatever they want.

Equally, of course, I do not expect them to stand in my way, of living my life as the person I am, the way nature intended me to be.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 727 posts, RR: 14
Reply 141, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 134):
do you see anyone standing with me?

I stand with you.

Morality in the secular world is just an opinion poll.



Pu


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6747 posts, RR: 12
Reply 142, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 135):
Let's take this Catholic nightmare to the most joyously twisted extreme, shall we? Suppose a man has contracted AIDS by accident in the course of his charity medical work. The Church can't possibly conjure up a reason to call that man sinful. Should he not wear a condom to protect his wife from this horrible disease? Is their physical expression of love somehow less worthwhile because she isn't "offering him her fertility" or whatever the hell you said above? Should their days of physical intimacy be over?

Like usual the catholic church has an answer for everything, so they would advise to use condoms in that case, if abstinence is not an option. How they justify it I don't remember, especially in light of what the pope said when he visited Africa (that caused a ruckus in France and probably cost many members to the already weak church here.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 141):
Morality in the secular world is just an opinion poll.

This is a gross oversimplification that suggests that secular justifications for a moral position are intellectually equivalent to whether someone prefers chocolate over vanilla or the color blue over red. Which is absolutely not true.

I'll repeat a quote from my earlier post that you've either missed or chosen not to address:

"Either way, it is always the case that something is right or wrong because society says so. Whether by the secular arguments that they find most persuasive or the brand of religion that they choose, society selects its morality."

Can you even begin to refute that for better or worse a society chooses its morality? Assuming you can't, then it follows that religious morality is as much of an "opinion poll" in the religious world than it is in the secular...the differences being that in religious-based morality you have to choose a set of opinions as a 'package deal' when you pick one whole religion over another, and in secular morality you're actually required to offer some rational justification for your opinion.

[Edited 2012-11-11 17:06:55]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 144, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 70):
Must be doing one heck of a job, then, to deserve salaries that give them 7 out of the top 10 counties in the U.S.

You really think it's government workers who are making those counties so wealthy? Lobbyists don't work for the government. All the financial sector people who deal with the government don't work for the government. All the people from defense contractors who deal with the Pentagon don't work for the government. All the think tank people don't work for the government. That's all private money.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 70):
Oh, and nobody works for the government - they are employed by it, which is a very different thing.

No, people do in fact work for the government.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 102):
All I asked was "How can you expect me to vote to endorse something that I don't believe in?"

You have to think outside the religious box. The rights that we have are not derived from any religion, but rather from the Constitution. Therefore, any decision on what people should or should not be able to do should be looked through a constitutional lens, n