Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[koshergrl]

You morons can quit with that. For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's just stupid. We keep telling you over and over and over...if it is appropriate it doesn't matter what faith is referenced.

Provided it's appropriate.

 

[koshergrl]

You all did the same thing with the stupid "Iraq didn't bomb us on 9/11!" mantra...years and years of it when nobody ever claimed we did.

You're doing the same thing with this, pretending that Christians object to freedom of religion if it's another religion. NO WE DON'T. Provided it's appropriate within the confines of our country, our constitution, our laws, and our people.

 

[Syphon]

You morons can quit with that. For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's just stupid. We keep telling you over and over and over...if it is appropriate it doesn't matter what faith is referenced.

Provided it's appropriate.

so faith has to be appropriate for it to be ok? meaning that you have to agree with their faith?

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

You morons can quit with that. For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's just stupid. We keep telling you over and over and over...if it is appropriate it doesn't matter what faith is referenced.

Provided it's appropriate.

you may say that, but this message board isn't dedicated only to you. other people have different opinions. unless i somehow missed the announcement that you speak for all republicans.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not speaking for anybody. I'm speaking to you and all the other extremist loons who fasten obsessively on a slogan and keep repeating it as if it signifies anything.

It doesn't. And it makes you look like an idiot.

Just sayin.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

I'm not speaking for anybody. I'm speaking to you and all the other extremist loons who fasten obsessively on a slogan and keep repeating it as if it signifies anything.

It doesn't. And it makes you look like an idiot.

Just sayin.

actually, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. that's why you're irritated with my point.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I'm irritated with your post for the reasons I listed. It's logical fallacy, and it's just more of the same stupidity that has been issuing from you wackos since forever.

It's a slogan that means nothing and has nothing to do with the issue you're supposedly addressing.

And another leftist loon trademark...the "I can read your mind...I know what you REALLY mean" statements. You keep that written on your palm so you know how to react to statements that don't fit your script.

"You said this but this is what I'm supposed to say. so to reconcile the two I'll just say 'this is what you meant' and speak to that instead!"

It's leftoid magic.

 

[Spectre13]

its a representative republic

Whatever the term, it is close enough that almost everyone refers to it as a democracy. We only need to define the differnence on a technical basis. Whatever it is,(insert your own terminology here), it is dead or is suffocating and near the end. It is run by money and the rich in the end, just as if Vlad Putin was handling the whole thing. It is Captain Dunsell and needs a complete overhaul.

I like Switzerland's direct democracy, where the population can overturn anything that is not in the people's interest. Now that technology can easily handle voting on a massive scale, real live demcracy could work like the Greeks envisioned it.

i agree with trying to make us a full democracy where we vote on everything. unfortunately, we would see nothing ever get passed since people fully educate themselves on the issues before they vote already.

That may be true, but we only need to be active enough to keep them honest. I know, it's an oxymoron to say honest and politician in the same sentence. There will always be ones like us who will be informed. We just need to make noise when we perceive the injustice. Switzerland has representatives and the populace doesn't have to get involved unless it decides what the representatives go against them.

We could learn a lot from them. Everyone gets to be a part. Even the parties take turns being the head of the government, so that everyone is represented. It's pretty cool and keeps the people currently in control from getting to entrenched and corrupt. I think it is a grand idea. Beats the hell out of Choice: Column A - Rich guy; Choice Column B - Rich guy; no choice at all.

 

[Immanuel]

You morons can quit with that. For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's just stupid. We keep telling you over and over and over...if it is appropriate it doesn't matter what faith is referenced.

Provided it's appropriate.

so faith has to be appropriate for it to be ok? meaning that you have to agree with their faith?

appropriate is another word for ok so yes, it must be appropriate for it to be okay.

As an example:

The statement, "It is not appropriate for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday." is the same as "It is not okay for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday."

I let my frustration get the better of me.

If you can find an apology in there, well, it is there. Buried, because my pride has not fully subsided.

Immie

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

No, I'm irritated with your post for the reasons I listed. It's logical fallacy, and it's just more of the same stupidity that has been issuing from you wackos since forever.

It's a slogan that means nothing and has nothing to do with the issue you're supposedly addressing.

And another leftist loon trademark...the "I can read your mind...I know what you REALLY mean" statements. You keep that written on your palm so you know how to react to statements that don't fit your script.

"You said this but this is what I'm supposed to say. so to reconcile the two I'll just say 'this is what you meant' and speak to that instead!"

It's leftoid magic.

Many of us (left, right and middle) see the danger in having religion based (or even religion favored) government. All of us, at times, may want own own religion to be the one that's favored, but we realize that there could be a time when another religion, that we don't like, is favored That's why many of us what government out of the religion business.

 

[Immanuel]

No, I'm irritated with your post for the reasons I listed. It's logical fallacy, and it's just more of the same stupidity that has been issuing from you wackos since forever.

It's a slogan that means nothing and has nothing to do with the issue you're supposedly addressing.

And another leftist loon trademark...the "I can read your mind...I know what you REALLY mean" statements. You keep that written on your palm so you know how to react to statements that don't fit your script.

"You said this but this is what I'm supposed to say. so to reconcile the two I'll just say 'this is what you meant' and speak to that instead!"

It's leftoid magic.

Many of us (left, right and middle) see the danger in having religion based (or even religion favored) government. All of us, at times, may want own own religion to be the one that's favored, but we realize that there could be a time when another religion, that we don't like, is favored That's why many of us what government out of the religion business.

The problem is that so often this discussion is couched in the accusation that Christians want their beliefs to be law. That when a Christians says they just want to be left alone to worship peacefully it is akin to demanding that everyone else join their church or be beheaded as an infidel.

The fact is that most Christians (we have our Pat Robertson's who think otherwise) don't believe in forced conversion (okay the P.R. slam is going to get me in trouble), nor do we want the government to have any say in who or what we worship. We don't want laws established for our faith, but neither do we want laws that act in detriment to our faith.

We don't see standing up against abortion as so much of a religious but more of an ethical and moral stance and before you say it, the vast majority of our laws were written to entrench someone's moral beliefs. Truthfully, because we have always been a nation consisting of mostly Christians, Judeo-Christian values do in fact play a large role in our laws. Can't help that.

Most of us liberal or conservative; faithful, atheist or agnostic; do not want the government playing a role in religion. I would love to see nativity scenes in malls again, or (terrible me) on display in places that we pass during the Christmas season (yes, that means public land) but I don't have a problem with other faiths showing their spirit during times that are important to them even if it coinsides with the Christmas season.

If an atheist sees a nativity scene on Christmas Eve how does that really hurt them? It doesn't bother me one bit to see an atheist's pamphlets declaring God to be dead all over the windows of the public library. I'll either read them or pass them by. Big deal!

Immie

 

[koshergrl]

No, I'm irritated with your post for the reasons I listed. It's logical fallacy, and it's just more of the same stupidity that has been issuing from you wackos since forever.

It's a slogan that means nothing and has nothing to do with the issue you're supposedly addressing.

And another leftist loon trademark...the "I can read your mind...I know what you REALLY mean" statements. You keep that written on your palm so you know how to react to statements that don't fit your script.

"You said this but this is what I'm supposed to say. so to reconcile the two I'll just say 'this is what you meant' and speak to that instead!"

It's leftoid magic.

Many of us (left, right and middle) see the danger in having religion based (or even religion favored) government. All of us, at times, may want own own religion to be the one that's favored, but we realize that there could be a time when another religion, that we don't like, is favored That's why many of us what government out of the religion business.

You're still not speaking to the topic. You're still rambling on about something else...

And if you want government out of religion, stop trying to use it to control religion. Pretty easy.

 

[Syphon]

You morons can quit with that. For one thing, it's a logical fallacy. For another, it's just stupid. We keep telling you over and over and over...if it is appropriate it doesn't matter what faith is referenced.

Provided it's appropriate.

so faith has to be appropriate for it to be ok? meaning that you have to agree with their faith?

appropriate is another word for ok so yes, it must be appropriate for it to be okay.

As an example:

The statement, "It is not appropriate for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday." is the same as "It is not okay for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday."

I let my frustration get the better of me.

If you can find an apology in there, well, it is there. Buried, because my pride has not fully subsided.

Immie

im a bit confused. correct me if im wrong, but if faith has to be appropriate then you have to agree with it. so if you dont agree with another faith then its not appropriate?

the reason i ask this is, i dont agree with most faiths (for differing reasons), does that mean something like sharia law as part of the muslim religion can have law made specifically to restrict it because its not appropriate? doesnt that cross the line and violate the first amendment?

 

[SillyWabbit]

so faith has to be appropriate for it to be ok? meaning that you have to agree with their faith?

appropriate is another word for ok so yes, it must be appropriate for it to be okay.

As an example:

The statement, "It is not appropriate for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday." is the same as "It is not okay for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday."

I let my frustration get the better of me.

If you can find an apology in there, well, it is there. Buried, because my pride has not fully subsided.

Immie

im a bit confused. correct me if im wrong, but if faith has to be appropriate then you have to agree with it. so if you dont agree with another faith then its not appropriate?

the reason i ask this is, i dont agree with most faiths (for differing reasons), does that mean something like sharia law as part of the muslim religion can have law made specifically to restrict it because its not appropriate? doesnt that cross the line and violate the first amendment?

A fairly straightforward rule of thumb: Your right to swing a shovel ends where my nose begins. Practice whatever religion you want. I don't care about how appropriate or not those practices are, as long as they don't break the law and don't infringe on anyone's rights.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

No, I'm irritated with your post for the reasons I listed. It's logical fallacy, and it's just more of the same stupidity that has been issuing from you wackos since forever.

It's a slogan that means nothing and has nothing to do with the issue you're supposedly addressing.

And another leftist loon trademark...the "I can read your mind...I know what you REALLY mean" statements. You keep that written on your palm so you know how to react to statements that don't fit your script.

"You said this but this is what I'm supposed to say. so to reconcile the two I'll just say 'this is what you meant' and speak to that instead!"

It's leftoid magic.

Many of us (left, right and middle) see the danger in having religion based (or even religion favored) government. All of us, at times, may want own own religion to be the one that's favored, but we realize that there could be a time when another religion, that we don't like, is favored That's why many of us what government out of the religion business.

You're still not speaking to the topic. You're still rambling on about something else...

And if you want government out of religion, stop trying to use it to control religion. Pretty easy.

This thread is long and has covered many topics. Tell me specifically what you want regarding government/religion.

 

[Disturbed1]

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.
******************************************************************

Great then Obama should not be able to force religious institutions to provide or pay for (by way of paying for the insurance providing it) things which go against their religious beliefs. That is exactly what's going on with this whole contraception mandate.

the problem with your argument is that once you upon up a hole like this, health care providers can then refuse to stop carrying products or services based on religious views. what if a catholic hospital refuses to admit a gay patient because they disagree with his/her lifestyle? what if a religious hospital refuses to admit an aids patient because AIDS (in their eyes) is a disease created to punish gays. what if a rape victim is brought by ambulance to a religious controlled hospital and that hospital refuses to carry emergency contraception.

this opens up a huge can of worms, and it actually a great argument for a single payer systems where everyone has access to the same care and services, while everyone pays the same price.

Health Care providers (such as Catholic hospitals) already don't provide certain services that go against their religious beliefs, for example they would not do a tubal ligation on a woman after she delivers a baby, if she wanted one. However, Catholic hospitals would not turn away a gay patient, because even though they may disagree with that person's lifestyle, they are still in need of care, they are still a human being who needs medical services. Would they provide medical services that went against what the Catholic Church teaches? No. But they definitely treat people who are gay, or who don't even believe in God or are even anti Catholic. This is basically an argument for freedom of religion.
As for your rape scenario I'm sure it happens already. Because I know for a fact Catholic hospitals do not and will not do anything to cause an abortion etc...they will treat the rape victim but if they want something to make sure they don't end up pregnant they have to go somewhere else.
Now you may not agree with it, but a Catholic owned hospital should not be forced to do something that goes against it's freedom of religion. That opens up a whole can of worms in itself. Don't you think?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the reason i ask this is, i dont agree with most faiths (for differing reasons), does that mean something like sharia law as part of the muslim religion can have law made specifically to restrict it because its not appropriate? doesnt that cross the line and violate the first amendment?

Yes.

 

[Immanuel]

so faith has to be appropriate for it to be ok? meaning that you have to agree with their faith?

appropriate is another word for ok so yes, it must be appropriate for it to be okay.

As an example:

The statement, "It is not appropriate for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday." is the same as "It is not okay for me to call you a prick like I did yesterday."

I let my frustration get the better of me.

If you can find an apology in there, well, it is there. Buried, because my pride has not fully subsided.

Immie

im a bit confused. correct me if im wrong, but if faith has to be appropriate then you have to agree with it. so if you dont agree with another faith then its not appropriate?

the reason i ask this is, i dont agree with most faiths (for differing reasons), does that mean something like sharia law as part of the muslim religion can have law made specifically to restrict it because its not appropriate? doesnt that cross the line and violate the first amendment?

Since when do I have to agree with something for it to be appropriate?

I don't agree with the muslim faith, that doesn't mean it is not appropriate for someone else to agree with it. It is not appropriate for ten minutes of an XXX rated film to be broadcast in the middle of a Sesame Street program.

There are plenty of things that I don't agree with that are appropriate. I don't agree with you, but I am not saying you are not appropriate.

It is not appropriate to make any laws based on any religious beliefs whether those beliefs are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist or any other of the myriad of faiths. We have the Separation of Church and State to prevent that as we should. That doesn't mean that a bill proposed by a Congressman won't be affected by his faith. It would be impossible to ask him not to allow that to happen, but that is why we have the judicial branch of our government: to review those laws and make sure that they follow the Constitution.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.
******************************************************************

Great then Obama should not be able to force religious institutions to provide or pay for (by way of paying for the insurance providing it) things which go against their religious beliefs. That is exactly what's going on with this whole contraception mandate.

the problem with your argument is that once you upon up a hole like this, health care providers can then refuse to stop carrying products or services based on religious views. what if a catholic hospital refuses to admit a gay patient because they disagree with his/her lifestyle? what if a religious hospital refuses to admit an aids patient because AIDS (in their eyes) is a disease created to punish gays. what if a rape victim is brought by ambulance to a religious controlled hospital and that hospital refuses to carry emergency contraception.

this opens up a huge can of worms, and it actually a great argument for a single payer systems where everyone has access to the same care and services, while everyone pays the same price.

Health Care providers (such as Catholic hospitals) already don't provide certain services that go against their religious beliefs, for example they would not do a tubal ligation on a woman after she delivers a baby, if she wanted one. However, Catholic hospitals would not turn away a gay patient, because even though they may disagree with that person's lifestyle, they are still in need of care, they are still a human being who needs medical services. Would they provide medical services that went against what the Catholic Church teaches? No. But they definitely treat people who are gay, or who don't even believe in God or are even anti Catholic. This is basically an argument for freedom of religion.
As for your rape scenario I'm sure it happens already. Because I know for a fact Catholic hospitals do not and will not do anything to cause an abortion etc...they will treat the rape victim but if they want something to make sure they don't end up pregnant they have to go somewhere else.
Now you may not agree with it, but a Catholic owned hospital should not be forced to do something that goes against it's freedom of religion. That opens up a whole can of worms in itself. Don't you think?

Absolutely agree.

Immie

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong. You can make laws based upon yours, or my, or a whole group of peoples', religious beliefs. You just can't make laws ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. My faith tells me that I should support (and if I were a politician or lobbyist, propose) laws that protect religious freedom, freedom of speech and a variety of other things. THAT IS A-OK. But if I were to propose laws that establish a RELIGION, or force people to WORSHIP, or to DENOUCE their faith, then that would be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science.