Me! Surprisingly enough it has been civil thus far.
Listen to the Magic Conch! It says ānothing!ā
"More on the impending theocracy: goodbye abortion rights! "
Over turning R v W will not end abortions, but it will give each state the right to determine whether to legalize it or not. That is why voting on the state level is important for everyone. Whoever is elected on a state level, at least in my state, is elected by the majority of voters who think thier particular candidate stands for what they(the voters who elected them) believe in. If South Dakota is successful in restricting abortions, then it is up to the opponents to vote in a state legislature that will overturn THAT ruling if they want abortions. I vote for prolife candidates in my state and if R v W is ever overturned and the abortion issue comes before my state legislature I hope the majority of us have voted in enough prolife candidates to ban it here also. But what if someone in SD wants an abortion?
Well, thatās the beauty of this country, they have the freedom! to get one in a state that hasnāt banned it. No one can stop them. As far a theocracy is concerned when it comes to abortions, that is a bit of a misnomer. Not everyone who is prolife or prochoice is of a religious background. Not by a long shot.
"Bob, I chased a teacher out of my kidsā public elementary school for making them sing Christian music. If anyone starts Bible readings again, I will bring a lawsuit. So now youāve met someone who objects very, very much. "
I also object to the murder of over a million unborn children a year. Iāve had to deal with it for over 30 years since R v W was handed down.
You object very, very much? Deal with it.
| Quote (BobBlais @ Mar. 06 2006,16:15) |
| "I understand that organized religion (generally) wants everyone to believe as they do so that they grow and become powerful. But understand that this is the will of men, not God. It is man that created āorganized religionā so they could gain control over the masses" Actually if there ever was an organized religion it was the ancient Hebrews. Not only was it a religion it was a way of life, a faith, a race of people. What the scriptures call the āChosen Peopleā. According to the Old Testament, it was the God of Abraham that began to āorganizeā the Hebrews, by designating a certain tribe to be priests, another as law givers etcā¦Now, to go a bit farther with this, the idea of organized religion is repugnant to some people, but even Jesus of Nazareth did not scorn the Hebrew religion or āfaithā as being too organized. What he railed against was the hypocrits in places of authority over the people. Not the āorganizationā. Jesus himself was what we would call a good Jew. He paid his taxes to the temple as it was the law, attended the synogogue on the sabbath and even read the scriptures to the congregation when it was his turn to do so.At least that is how I see it. To go one step further, Jesus had ample opportunity to bad mouth and do all he could to destroy the āorganizationā but he didnāt. As a matter of fact, in one scripture passage, after calling some Pharisees hypocrits, he turned to the people and told them to do what the Pharisees directed them to do, BUT! ādo not do as they doā. Another words, do not be hypocrits like those who had authority over them, but obey them since it is God that gave them the authority. So, organized religion is not, in my mind, that bad. It is the people, or I should say, some of the people in authority that make it bad. Just like the old days eh? |
Here is where your argument falls flat. I understand that your beliefs come from the bible, whereas mine do not. You see, as far as I am concerned, the bible was written by men. And unless you can get me a copy written in Godās own hand, you are not going to change my view of that fact. And since the bible is written by men, then the stories are going to lean toward the control of the masses. Donāt get me wrong, there are plenty of good concepts for living to be gained from the bible. But you have not convinced me that God wants people to be led in devisive groups to him. Do you really believe it is Godās will that you follow your own (groupās) beliefs against other groups of people who also believe and worship him? Do you believe it is better for people to kill each other over the right to call their own chosen religion the more perfect religion? God did not create this situation, man did. And it is people who continue to preach devisive views that continue this immoral tradition.
No Bill, God did not create organized religion as it exists today; man is to blame for this. I believe that God wants us all to be happy and a positive influence on our fellow man. Being aggressively devisive is counter to Godās wishes and is a construct of man to gain control over his fellow man. There are a few religions that do not have leaders that hold power over others. One of them is the Society of Friends. I teach at one of their schools and am beginning to believe that it may be a good fit for me. What I like most about them is that they embrace all people and are against all war. Sounds to me like they have a clue as to Godās true wishes.
"Do you really believe it is Godās will that you follow your own (groupās) beliefs against other groups of people who also believe and worship him? Do you believe it is better for people to kill each other over the right to call their own chosen religion the more perfect religion? God did not create this situation, man did. And it is people who continue to preach devisive views that continue this immoral tradition.
No Bill, God did not create organized religion as it exists today; man is to blame for this."
You are right in saying that God did not create organized religion as it exists TODAY. I have no problem with that. I was speaking about how the Hebrews, as a religion and way of life was organized, as it is written in the Old Testament.
āSo, organized religion is not, in my mind, that bad. It is the people, or I should say, some of the people in authority that make it bad. " This is what I said. Iām against the people who run organized religion for thier own purposes and agendas. Not Godās. And I agree with you that it is very harmful and counter productive for groups, no matter who they are to be devisive against another. Serves no purpose but to divide those who should be united. I could never prove to you that the Bible was āwritten or inspired by Godā. That comes through faith. But I do know that, as it is written in the New Testament, that Christ read and quoted the same scriptures we call the Old Testament. I donāt think he would have done that if the scriptures were not written under the inspiration of God. Again it is a matter of faith. We need also to remember that Christ said also that " I have come to put father against son, mother against daughter etcā¦ā excuse me but Iām paraphrasing here since Iām not sure at this time what the exact words were. In any case, those words do not sound to āunitingā but more divisive than anything else.
| Quote (BobBlais @ Mar. 07 2006,08:52) |
| "More on the impending theocracy: goodbye abortion rights! " Over turning R v W will not end abortions, but it will give each state the right to determine whether to legalize it or not. That is why voting on the state level is important for everyone. Whoever is elected on a state level, at least in my state, is elected by the majority of voters who think thier particular candidate stands for what they(the voters who elected them) believe in. If South Dakota is successful in restricting abortions, then it is up to the opponents to vote in a state legislature that will overturn THAT ruling if they want abortions. I vote for prolife candidates in my state and if R v W is ever overturned and the abortion issue comes before my state legislature I hope the majority of us have voted in enough prolife candidates to ban it here also. But what if someone in SD wants an abortion? Well, that's the beauty of this country, they have the freedom! to get one in a state that hasn't banned it. No one can stop them. As far a theocracy is concerned when it comes to abortions, that is a bit of a misnomer. Not everyone who is prolife or prochoice is of a religious background. Not by a long shot. "Bob, I chased a teacher out of my kids' public elementary school for making them sing Christian music. If anyone starts Bible readings again, I will bring a lawsuit. So now you've met someone who objects very, very much. " I also object to the murder of over a million unborn children a year. I've had to deal with it for over 30 years since R v W was handed down. You object very, very much? Deal with it. |
And ending the constitutional ban on slavery will allow states the right to decide for themselves whether they want it or not. While we're at it, we can do the same for free speech, privacy (oops, too late, bush did that already), etc.
That's the problem here, Bob. Rights are anti-majoritarian - they are not subject to vote. This is not a state's "rights" (that is, more properly, "powers") issue. It is a women's rights issue.
I once more detect more than a hint of evangelical jurisprudential rheotric in your post, Bob, and I should warn you, that jursiprudence is for the most part simplistic, based on ignorance and fear, and usually wrong. But I will be happy to clear things up for you!
And, no, I will not "deal with" religious incursions in my kids' public schools - uless you mean "deal with it" as I did! I will make sure that people with religious agendas either keep them quiet or get fired. I'll do this for you as much as for my kids, Bob.
But don't mention it! You are quite welcome!
I guess no one saw my postā¦ I just wonder if folks have considered such a thing. I am sure TomS has based on his position. But some of you folks that are religious, does what I say make sense? I donāt think folks think religion in government through to the logical end and see how religion in government does nothing but hurt their own right to religious freedom. It is in all of our interest that religion belong to us as individuals and not to a government body. IN a way, it is a property rights issue. No one wants to lose their backyard to imminent domain to build the Baptist or Sunni through way.
As for abortion, this is why the argument will ever end. One side says it is an issue of the right for a human to live as folks believe a fetus is fully human and on the other hand folks do not believe it is fully human and therefore a medical decision up to the woman. The question should be, what makes a human human? The potential or the actuality?
"Thatās the problem here, Bob. Rights are anti-majoritarian - they are not subject to vote. This is not a stateās ārightsā (that is, more properly, āpowersā) issue. It is a womenās rights issue."
Thatās right, they are anti-majoritarian- not subject to vote. So? Where are the rights of the unborn human? Or is it that because you canāt see the baby yet itās out of sight out of mind? No rights required? And yes, you would be right that it is a womenās right issue, IF it ONLY concerned the woman. But it concerns the killing of another human being in order for that woman to secure her right. Again you are wrong.
Me? An Evangelical? Ha, fat chance. Itās called common sense to take care of those that cannot defend themselves. I would even do it for you. But donāt mention it! Youāre quite welcome.
| Quote (BobBlais @ Mar. 07 2006,12:28) |
| Where are the rights of the unborn human? Or is it that because you canāt see the baby yet itās out of sight out of mind? No rights required? |
No, it has to do with the fact that not everyone can agree on whether a fetus is a human or not and subject to the same rights as someone who is born.
Food for thought, should we give social security numbers to someone as soon as they are conceived? If yes or no, why? Should we forgo birth certificates and have conception certificates? Do we jail a mother for man slaughter if she accidentally kills a fetus (falls down the stepsā¦)? Do you see how messy these questions get? Slippery slope again. I donāt claim to have the answers, but I would hope it would at least foster some understanding as to what the other side is thinking and why. It is very easy to see in black and white, and often very hard to see all the gray.
Bubba, come on. Whether it is a human or not is no longer an arguement. That is why some have been incarcerated for the killing of both the mother and her unborn. I have yet to see a human mother give birth to a dog or cat.
"Do you see how messy these questions get? Slippery slope again. "
Do you think that it is messier than the killing of a baby? ? ?
| Quote (BobBlais @ Mar. 07 2006,12:40) |
| Bubba, come on. Whether it is a human or not is no longer an arguement. That is why some have been incarcerated for the killing of both the mother and her unborn. |
Apparantly it IS still an argument because folks still are hashing it out. You and TomSā¦ case in point. If you read what I said above, I did not say the argument was whether it was human or not, but FULLY human and at what point does it get the same rights as someone who is born. Potential versus actuality. Some folks have been convicted for killinga fetus, but that is still getting punted around in the courts and is hardly a dead issue. I am not about to take a side on this issue here, but I still think the issue can be very very gray depending on how you look at it. I am not here to argue the merits of either side, simply to state that the argument is very different depending on where you are viewing it from. (hrm, how many ways can I say that?
) EDIT: Ah, I didnāt say āfullyā human aboveā¦ that is what I meant. My mom had a monkey, but I turned out okay. Regardless, folks still canāt agree on that point.
Ooo, I just thought of another question to start bar fights with. Should a parent have the right to pull the plug on their child in the case of some terminal illness where the child is a vegetable etc? OR Can a woman be taken to jail for nelect for eating poorly during pregnancy? Or molestation for having sex during pregnancy? I had to much fun in debate class when I was in school.
Next, who would you rather kiss on the mouth? Your dog or your mom?
Bubba, Itās alright, my mom had a neanderthal, but Iām ok with itā¦she still loves me. I understand what you are saying about the differing arguements, but I guess in my mind, I believe it is fully human. I would rather err on the side of life than death.
Dude, I am so getting this to 50 pages. (Secretly jealous of Bob getting the top of 38)
Anyway, I figure by page 50 we will have solved all of the worldās problems, and that will be quite satisfying.
jeeeeeeeeez bubba, If I could, Iād give you the top spot on 38, but donāt know how to do it. Iāll take second billing, I donāt mind
| Quote (BobBlais @ Mar. 07 2006,12:03) |
| You are right in saying that God did not create organized religion as it exists TODAY. This is what I said. Iām against the people who run organized religion for thier own purposes and agendas. Not Godās. And I agree with you that it is very harmful and counter productive for groups, no matter who they are to be devisive against another. Serves no purpose but to divide those who should be united. |
So who is to determine Godās agenda for organized religion todayā¦ you? Do you not see that a vast amount of pain and suffering in the world today is in the name of organized religion? Even in our own country there are people who believe that an unborn fetus has more rights than those who are fully developed adults. There are those who would bomb a clinic with people in it because there are abortions that are practiced there. The current administration would have all unborn fetuses forced into birth against the will of the parents yet would then send those 18 year old adults (grown fetuses) into war to kill others. Does this make sense to you? Do we save the fetus so that it will give us power later to do the bidding of our leaders? Do you not see that you are a pawn at the hands of a republican spin machine? They care not about the unborn fetus; they see this as a power devirsion. Their propaganda is meant to get your vote, not to save a fetus. IF they were truely concerned about life, they would be against killing all humans, not just ones that are small groups of cells.
You see Bill, you have taken the side of death in this issue. That is what the Republican spin machine is about. For if you were truely about preserving life, all life, you would take the side of the mother, not the unborn cells. It is the duty of the mother to decide whether life will take place, not some legislator whose only thought is for power.
Sure, educate the mother. Give her real alternatives and you will get a society with low abortion rates. No oneā¦ NO ONE really wants an abortion. And I would never want to have to make such a decision. But I am not God. And I am not going to pass judgement on another person. Are you willing to be God?
So who is to determine Godās agenda for organized religion todayā¦ you?
Nope. Iām not God and do not pretend to be. I would join an organized religion if I thought that it would help people and not destroy them.
Do you not see that a vast amount of pain and suffering in the world today is in the name of organized religion?
Of course I see that. And it is wrong. But please donāt generalize. Not all organized religions cause deliberate pain and suffering in the name of thier Deity.
Even in our own country there are people who believe that an unborn fetus has more rights than those who are fully developed adults. There are those who would bomb a clinic with people in it because there are abortions that are practiced there.
I agree with your two statements above and believe these people are wrong in thier thinking and actions.
The current administration would have all unborn fetuses forced into birth against the will of the parents yet would then send those 18 year old adults (grown fetuses) into war to kill others.
I also believe an unborn baby should have the right to a full life outside the womb. As far as the grown fetuses, it is a shame to send them to war but war is a reality. Has been since the beginning of time. I would love to have a world where no one would have to die in a war. But at the present moment that would seem to be wishful thinkingā¦unfortunately.
Do we save the fetus so that it will give us power later to do the bidding of our leaders?
Do you feel that you are doing the bidding of our leaders?
Do you not see that you are a pawn at the hands of a republican spin machine? They care not about the unborn fetus; they see this as a power devirsion. Their propaganda is meant to get your vote, not to save a fetus. IF they were truely concerned about life, they would be against killing all humans, not just ones that are small groups of cells.
Do you not see that you are a pawn at the hands of a democrat spin machine? They care not about the grown fetus; they see this as a power devirsion. Their propaganda is meant to get your vote, not to save a grown fetus. IF they were truely concerned about life, they would be against killing all humans including the unborn, not just the fetuses that are grown up.
You see Bill, you have taken the side of death in this issue. That is what the Republican spin machine is about. For if you were truely about preserving life, all life, you would take the side of the mother, not the unborn cells. It is the duty of the mother to decide whether life will take place, not some legislator whose only thought is for power.
Sorry but you are wrong. I can say the same for you that if you are truly for perserving life, all life, you take the side of the unborn baby. Yes a woman can decide whether a life will take place, but once she has conceived a life, it is her duty to protect and nurture it.
But I am not God. And I am not going to pass judgement on another person. Are you willing to be God?
Nope, donāt want that job. As far as passing judgement, I donāt pass judgement on people. I canāt. I donāt know what is in thier hearts and minds to determine if they should be considered bad or not. But I can and have the right to judge actions to determine whether those actions are right or wrong. And I for one believe killing an unborn baby is wrong.
<!āQuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Do you not see that you are a pawn at the hands of a republican spin machine? They care not about the unborn fetus; they see this as a power devirsion. Their propaganda is meant to get your vote, not to save a fetus. IF they were truely concerned about life, they would be against killing all humans, not just ones that are small groups of cells. |
cough Iraq War and capital punishment cough
Maybe I am denseā¦ but what is a grown fetus? Like a 6 foot tall 3rd trimester sort of thing?
Seriously though, you assume folks are on the side of life. Personally I am not. There is plenty of life I could do without (ticks and chiggers!). Not to mention, if I am a veggie in a hospital bed, dear god, pull the plug. The dems, one could argue, are on the side of the individualās rights be it to live or die or put tattoos on their butt or practice the religion of their choosing with no government intervention. However, I am not saying that they still arenāt scum bags. If we didnāt have politicians, who would we have to hate?
Sorry Bubba, but that doesnāt fly with me. I expect to be defended by my nation when attacked and murderous acts by criminals need to be punished. If the courts can guarentee me that a murderer will never see the light of day again to commit another murder I would say leave them in for life no matter how much it costs and forego capital punishment.
Iāll chime in one more time on thisā¦ cynical olā meā¦
The ONLY difference between hard-core Democrats and hard-core Republicans is the party card in thier wallet. Same BS, different faces. They want the SAME things, MONEY and POWER. They spout different agendas trying to win popularity but in the end itās money and power. They both use āreligionā in different ways but they DO both USE it.
D
EDIT: RATS! I was lookinā for 39ā¦ 
| Quote (BobBlais @ Mar. 07 2006,15:39) |
| Sorry Bubba, but that doesnāt fly with me. I expect to be defended by my nation when attacked and murderous acts by criminals need to be punished. If the courts can guarentee me that a murderer will never see the light of day again to commit another murder I would say leave them in for life no matter how much it costs and forego capital punishment. |
I am not sure what you are saying hereā¦ you seem to say opposing things. From a war perspective (as I think is what you were referring to in the beginning) plenty of folks have taken the pascifist route. (Though I am on board with the capital punishment thingā¦ lock em up. Too much DNA evidence has shown the folly of killing a ācriminalā in recent years.)
I donāt knowā¦ if you are a defender of life, are we going for quantity or quality? For instance, I was raised going to Catholic school and the pope himself as a ādefender of lifeā said that to be in line with God yadda yadda, all life is sacredā¦ no abortion, no squashing ants, no wars, no electric chair, no pulling the plugā¦ though hamburgers are still okay so long as you arenāt wasteful. At least the dude is consistant when it comes to humans.
So we kill 30,000 people over seas to maintain the quality of life of 300 million here? Then on the other hand one might defend a woman who is in a coma and has 0 quality of life so it looks like we are going for quantity in that scenario? I really donāt know how to take such things personally. I canāt help but think a poor and miserable quality of life is perhaps not worth living (tink about kids born with 2 years to live with some degenerative disease that is constant painā¦) , but at the same time I am not about to make that decision for someone. Until I figure it out, I just want everyone to be nice.
EDIT: No 39 for me either. And TG, youāre nuts. Use ourselves against us? You suppose the politicians are that bright?
EDIT 2: Can you tell this is famine day for me a t workā¦ Ahhh, a lull.