TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) All people of religion have it guide their moral compass- the problem is when their moral compass infringes on mine. Our government will continue to peddle influence until we keep them from doing that- I read a nice article about how that has given us the worst tax code in existence. The problem arises when people insist that rights are nothing more than policy democratically administered by government on behalf of the people. Under a system backed by those beliefs no liberty is uninfringable. Edited August 13, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
Jauronimo Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 You think the basis for not killing is religious? The earliest laws were all based on religion and spiritualism, including those regarding murder.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 The earliest laws were all based on religion and spiritualism, including those regarding murder. There is a great book about this called The Genesis of Justice by Alan Dershowitz.
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 The problem arises when people insist that rights are nothing more than policy democratically administered by government on behalf of the people. Under a system backed by those beliefs no liberty is uninfringable. Well said.
John Adams Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 The earliest laws were all based on religion and spiritualism, including those regarding murder. Do you think people don't kill because of religion? Do you think people don't understand that killing is wrong because of religion? Of course not.
IDBillzFan Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Laws based on religion. We don't need them And what about laws that force religions to defy their beliefs? If a certain religion does not believe in abortions, can the government force those churches to pay for the abortions of its employees? Or force religions that do not believe in birth control to provide birth control to their employees? Is this equally unacceptable to you?
John Adams Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 And what about laws that force religions to defy their beliefs? If a certain religion does not believe in abortions, can the government force those churches to pay for the abortions of its employees? Or force religions that do not believe in birth control to provide birth control to their employees? Is this equally unacceptable to you? Yes. Private companies should be free to give whatever benefits they want to (or don't).
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 And what about laws that force religions to defy their beliefs? If a certain religion does not believe in abortions, can the government force those churches to pay for the abortions of its employees? Or force religions that do not believe in birth control to provide birth control to their employees? Is this equally unacceptable to you? If we are protected from their beliefs, then I would be fine with exempting them.
B-Man Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Yes. Private companies should be free to give whatever benefits they want to (or don't). If we are protected from their beliefs, then I would be fine with exempting them. The Obama administration does not agree with you.....................sorry .
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 The Obama administration does not agree with you.....................sorry . According to the people on the board, the administration also agrees with me
John Adams Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) The Obama administration does not agree with you.....................sorry No sh__ Sherlock, but that's a social issue only simpletons care about. Edited August 13, 2012 by John Adams
B-Man Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 According to the people on the board, the administration also agrees with me touche' but you are the "middle of the roader", not them the Obama administration practices liberal intolerance. . No sh__ Sherlock, but that's a social issue only simpletons care about. What an assinine answer, obviously Mr Obama cares about that view, and the force of the government makes it much more than just a "social issue" Elementary, my dear Watson..........................................................................but you knew that. .
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 There's a distinction between the government granting an exemption to an odious law and the creation of that law in the first place.
Jauronimo Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Do you think people don't kill because of religion? Do you think people don't understand that killing is wrong because of religion? Of course not. While blindly condemning any shred of our legal system that has ties to religion shouldn't it behoove you and Adam to understand the origin of law? You're making a very silly point. Go ahead if you must, but I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove.
Max Fischer Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 New media isn't embarrassing. Those two you posted above provide ways for you to further investigate opinions and news. Watching TV or reading Print is mostly taking what they say as factual. Join the online community and learn that there are more than two views to every issue. I wish the left would just get over the fact that Obama is indeed a socialist/Marxist and quit getting all butt hurt when someone calls him what he is. Nobody is saying he's Stalin or Hitler and wants to murder millions who disagree with him (at least not literally). Not only does Congressman Ryan's plan have a grandfather clause, once implemented it has an option to go with the medicare the way it is now. It is a waste of time to engage anyone who truly believes Obama is a socialist/Marxist. The same would go to debate anyone who says Bush was a fascist.
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 While blindly condemning any shred of our legal system that has ties to religion shouldn't it behoove you and Adam to understand the origin of law? You're making a very silly point. Go ahead if you must, but I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove. Obviously, there's no connection between the law and such silly things as The Ten Commandments. As long as other people's religions can be ignored, but people who like to stick their dick up other guy's asses can be legitimized with a wedding cake and a paper from the government, it's all good. Actually, I really don't give a damn, but it never fails to make me laugh that the guys who like other guy's boners have to make fun of religion to give themselves a free pass from people who really don't give a schit. At least I won't be the one turned into a pillar of salt.
Rob's House Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 It is a waste of time to engage anyone who truly believes Obama is a socialist/Marxist. The same would go to debate anyone who says Bush was a fascist. Why? What is your argument? What differentiates his beliefs from that of a socialist? Is it because no socialist could ever get elected Presidenct? Isn't that circular thinking. Or is it just because no socialist could read a speech like he does? Seriously, what is it? It's one thing if you have an actual argument. Coming in with your wrist bent lisping about how "extreme" it is less than worthless. You basically said, "it's this way, because." So, what you got?
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Why? What is your argument? What differentiates his beliefs from that of a socialist? Is it because no socialist could ever get elected Presidenct? Isn't that circular thinking. Or is it just because no socialist could read a speech like he does? Seriously, what is it? It's one thing if you have an actual argument. Coming in with your wrist bent lisping about how "extreme" it is less than worthless. You basically said, "it's this way, because." So, what you got? He/She certainly sashayed around that one. He/She and JA should probably PM.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Why? What is your argument? What differentiates his beliefs from that of a socialist? Is it because no socialist could ever get elected Presidenct? Isn't that circular thinking. Or is it just because no socialist could read a speech like he does? Seriously, what is it? It's one thing if you have an actual argument. Coming in with your wrist bent lisping about how "extreme" it is less than worthless. You basically said, "it's this way, because." So, what you got? Rob, while he may or may not be a socialist philisophically, he's been nothing but neo-mercantilist in practice.
WorldTraveller Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Holy ****! Aren't left leaning folks embarrassed over Debbie wasserman Schultz? Yesterday she said she didn't know the party affiliation of the producers of obamas super PAC . Then today ( google wolf blitzer and Debbie). It's on rcp website. Wolf blitzer tried to have her admit that people over 55 wouldn't get affected. She did not want to admit it, he repeatedly (must have been five times he pressed her) tried to get her to admit it, she flat out lied. She lied yesterday and she lied today and she is the dnc head. It's outright embarrassment and she represents the democratic party. She's a bold faced liar and that's not hyperbole, that's fact, and she represents the democratic party. The democrats right now look like a bunch of small people right now. Small, liars, shallow, vitriolic and no substantive .
Recommended Posts