Tim Cook to attend State of the Union Address with Michelle Obama - Page 3

Don't you get it? The only "conscience rights" that are relevant in the birth control debate and the abortion debate are the conscience rights of the woman who chooses whether or not to use birth control or have an abortion. What you want to do is to force your conscience on her. Not a very Christian thing to do, in the way that I read the New Testament.

And the President of the United States cannot lead by your interpretation or even the popular interpretation of any religion, whatsoever. That is what would be against the law.

Don't forget the most important fact is that Jesus was a JEW.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

That may well be. I can't read their minds. You'll have to show us what Obama proposals these Republicans have supported when they were proposed by someone other than Obama but then voted against when Obama proposed it. I don't deny that some do this. But since you (and jimmac) have chosen to paint in the broad strokes of "Republicans" (i.e., all) or "the party of 'no'" (i.e., all). The burden is on you here.

 

But at this point, it appears that the reasoning jimmac offers is pretty much if Obama proposes it and Republicans oppose it, they are the "party of 'no'" ipso facto. Nothing more.

Here's another example.  The Dream Act.  This was proposed by Senator Rubio.  President Obama adopted it but didn't get any traction due to Republican opposition since their answer at the time was "self-deportation" until Romney lost the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

No, because an an announcement of an 'Obama compromise' is normally just a lie.

 

This is an administration so liberal that a Bible publisher isn't deemed to be sufficiently religious to warrant religious freedom protections.

 

After Obama's grand 'compromise', Catholic hospitals and educational institutions are still being forced to participate in an action they deem against their religion and business-owning Christians are still fighting for their conscience rights. These cases are still winding their way through the courts.

 

So no, it's not in the past. This is very much in the present.

 

And if you want to know why people still doubt Obama's commitment to Christianity, this would be Exhibit A.

You don't have to be Catholic to see the principle here.

1) A publisher isn't "significantly religious" since it is a for profit company.  Hospitals and schools tend to claim non-profit status if backed by a religious institution.

2) These institutions aren't forced.  If their convictions were so strong, why are they hiring women who take birth control in the first place?  Why not administer a blood test and fire anybody who has birth control prescriptions present?  I mean, paying these women a salary so that they can turn around and purchase BC is just as bad conviction-wise, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

The population of the U.S. was estimated at 313,914,040 in 2012.

 

126 million people (approximately 40% of the total U.S. population) voted in the 2012 election (if you believe the polling numbers).

 

Of those, 62,611,250 (49.7% of those who voted, 20% of the total U.S. population) voted for Obama.

 

Claiming everything Obama does is what voters want is not only absurd, it is outright false.

 

We essentially have 20% of the population claiming the authority to dictate what the other 80% can and cannot do without objection or question. The Constitution was meant limit the power of government so that it could not be used in this way.

In 2010 there were 234M resident population of voting age of the US.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-age_population_and_voter_participation.html

Voter turn out was estimated at 57.5%

If you don't show up to vote in a representative democracy...well...you just failed to object or question.  Even in a blue state I show up to vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

In 2010 there were 234M resident population of voting age of the US.

 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-age_population_and_voter_participation.html

 

Voter turn out was estimated at 57.5%

 

If you don't show up to vote in a representative democracy...well...you just failed to object or question.  Even in a blue state I show up to vote.

At what percentage is it "moral" for a group of individuals to violently coerce or force other individuals to do what they want?

60%?

80%?

99%?

I tend to agree with Herbert Spencer's view:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Don't you get it? The only "conscience rights" that are relevant in the birth control debate and the abortion debate are the conscience rights of the woman who chooses whether or not to use birth control or have an abortion. What you want to do is to force your conscience on her. Not a very Christian thing to do, in the way that I read the New Testament.

 

And the President of the United States cannot lead by your interpretation or even the popular interpretation of any religion, whatsoever. That is what would be against the law.

Nobody is asking that the President become a Theocrat. That's your own personal straw man.

All I said is that, as a religious person, he should at least be keen to be respectful to other people's conscience rights.

(And the fact that you put that phrase in scare quotes is illuminating, to say the least.)

We "force our conscience" on to axe murderers, rapists, tax cheats, and liars (and other assorted liberals) all the time.

You're saying that a woman who wants to kill a human child should suddenly be left alone to make that decision?

Your reading of the New Testament is terribly misguided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Who the hell are you to judge Obama as a Christian? I have every faith that he is 100% committed to his interpretation of Christianity. An interpretation that probably has a lot in common with mine, emphasizing things Jesus actually taught, like compassion, patience, tolerance, love thy neighbor, sacrifice your own needs for the needs of others, and NOT emphasizing things Jesus NEVER taught like whether abortion or homosexuality is a sin.

Again with the lies of omission? Every reputable scholar affirms that Jesus fully accepted the acknowledgement of those action as sin as prescribed in the Torah.

He was tried in a religious court you know, and no one thought to bring that up?

Or was sexual immorality not a big issue in Judea while it was held by the Romans?

Maybe the Jews just hated the Romans for their fashion sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh 

2) These institutions aren't forced.  If their convictions were so strong, why are they hiring women who take birth control in the first place?  Why not administer a blood test and fire anybody who has birth control prescriptions present?  I mean, paying these women a salary so that they can turn around and purchase BC is just as bad conviction-wise, right?

Would you like to take that one Tonton? Why don't religious organizations just fire people who violate their mission?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

At what percentage is it "moral" for a group of individuals to violently coerce or force other individuals to do what they want?

 

60%?

 

80%?

 

99%?

According to the Constitution whatever percentage required for an electoral victory is the percentage required for presidency.

Violently coerce?  Histrionic much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

According to the Constitution whatever percentage required for an electoral victory is the percentage required for presidency.

 

Violently coerce?  Histrionic much?

Government is violence. People can and do use government to impose their will on others. It's not overly dramatic, it's the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Government is violence. People can and do use government to impose their will on others. It's not overly dramatic, it's the truth.

I am rolling my eyes very hard right now.  Would it be we still had emoticons to indicate this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

No really, you're having a conversation with a figment of your imagination. You're assuming all sorts of things about me and my intentions and addressing these assumptions in your replies instead of what I'm actually saying.

 

You can only blame yourself for engaging. He's only been doing this for the past decade or so.

I'm thinking it's this attitude that most of the Republicans in congress have. It's why nothing gets done because even before the other side opens their mouth the conservative Teapublican side has already deemed what they have to say is not of value and null and void. So do you feel more fufilled, superior, and smug now that you've made your comment Frank?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

WTF?! You're combining all the non-voters, which include many that can't legally vote for various reasons, in your argument for being against Obama and the Democratic party. That's that some Limbaughian shit right there. Let's imagine what would happen if everyone in the US did have a vote. Children, convicted felons who are predominately black, and illegals. You're mistaken to think that would help the GOP and their Medieval mindset.

You are making some grand (and erroneous) assumptions about what I think.

Not someone making assumptions from the statements you made! Say it ain't so!

God! Not this again!

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

I am rolling my eyes very hard right now.  Would it be we still had emoticons to indicate this.

You mean this:  ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

Nobody is asking that the President become a Theocrat. That's your own personal straw man.

 

All I said is that, as a religious person, he should at least be keen to be respectful to other people's conscience rights.

(And the fact that you put that phrase in scare quotes is illuminating, to say the least.)

 

We "force our conscience" on to axe murderers, rapists, tax cheats, and liars (and other assorted liberals) all the time.

You're saying that a woman who wants to kill a human child should suddenly be left alone to make that decision?

 

Your reading of the New Testament is terribly misguided.

 

 

Again with the lies of omission? Every reputable scholar affirms that Jesus fully accepted the acknowledgement of those action as sin as prescribed in the Torah.

 

He was tried in a religious court you know, and no one thought to bring that up?

Or was sexual immorality not a big issue in Judea while it was held by the Romans?

 

Maybe the Jews just hated the Romans for their fashion sense.

 

 

Would you like to take that one Tonton? Why don't religious organizations just fire people who violate their mission?

A few points:

1. Contrary to your statement, many on the Religious Right do in fact want to convert the United States of America from a representative democratic republic based on the Constitution of the United States into a theocracy based on their interpretation of the Holy Bible.
2. We do not force our conscience on axe murders, rapists, tax cheats, and liars. We arrest, try, and incarcerate them. After they serve their sentences, then they are released from incarceration even if their views remain exactly as they were when they committed their crimes. Your comment that these criminals are liberals is an assertion without evidence.
3. That Jesus was tried in a religious court is a religious belief, not a historical fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

In 2010 there were 234M resident population of voting age of the US.

 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-age_population_and_voter_participation.html

 

Voter turn out was estimated at 57.5%

 

If you don't show up to vote in a representative democracy...well...you just failed to object or question.  Even in a blue state I show up to vote.

 

At what percentage is it "moral" for a group of individuals to violently coerce or force other individuals to do what they want?

 

60%?

 

80%?

 

99%?

 

I tend to agree with Herbert Spencer's view:

 

Quote:

By no process can coercion be made equitable. The freest form of government is only the least objectionable form. The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny: the rule of the few by the many is tyranny also; only of a less intense kind. "You shall do as we will, and not as you will," is in either case the declaration: and if the hundred make it to the ninety-nine, instead of the ninety-nine to the hundred, it is only a fraction less immoral. Of two such parties, whichever fulfills this declaration necessarily breaks the law of equal freedom: the only difference being that by the one it is broken in the persons of ninety-nine, whilst by the other it is broken in the persons of a hundred. And the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this, that it trespasses against the smallest number.

And how much of the country is made up of views of the extreme right or say the Tea Party? How about people who favor giving the wealthy the edge over the common person out there? Viewing some of the current polls and elections I'd be willing to bet it's smaller. Certainly if we have a system where the wealthy ( top 1 % ) have the better deal as far as taxes etc. the ratio is a smaller group controling the larger. As a matter of fact the more you lean that way the more you have ruling class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

And how much of the country is made up of views of the extreme right or say the Tea Party? How about people who favor giving the wealthy the edge over the common person out there? Viewing some of the current polls and elections I'd be willing to bet it's smaller. Certainly if we have a system where the wealthy ( top 1 % ) have the better deal as far as taxes etc. the ratio is a smaller group controling the larger. As a matter of fact the more you lean that way the more you have ruling class.

Whatever you say, jimmac. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Coercion by representative LEGAL force to stop people from treating others or the environment like shit is far preferable to coercion by treating others like shit in the first place, which is the best case scenario of what happens when there is no law.

Coercion will happen regardless, whether it's the police stopping someone from parking illegally or some dickhead with a sign in his window that says "no negroes allowed".

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." -- French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Me 

 

A few points:

1. Contrary to your statement, many on the Religious Right do in fact want to convert the United States of America from a representative democratic republic based on the Constitution of the United States into a theocracy based on their interpretation of the Holy Bible.
2. We do not force our conscience on axe murders, rapists, tax cheats, and liars. We arrest, try, and incarcerate them. After they serve their sentences, then they are released from incarceration even if their views remain exactly as they were when they committed their crimes. Your comment that these criminals are liberals is an assertion without evidence.
3. That Jesus was tried in a religious court is a religious belief, not a historical fact.

1. Please name any mainstream Christian organization or church based in the U.S. that advocates converting the Republic into a Theocracy.

We have been over this many times at AI. The 'Religious Right' was a significant majority (and much stronger politically than now) in the U.S. at varying times in its history, and never tried to turn the country into a Theocracy. This charge is liberal nonsense. Advocating that people personally adhere to the Bible in their moral code is not the same as advocating a Theocracy.

2. If you "arrest, try and incarcerate" someone, you are automatically forcing your personal moral beliefs about their behaviour upon them.

3. Jesus is documented as being taken first to the Sanhedrin before begin taken to Roman authorities.

No reputable scholar, as far as I know, argues differently. If you are arguing that that Jesus didn't really exist, then you're at odds with all kinds of historical scholars, even some of whom are atheist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

And how much of the country is made up of views of the extreme right or say the Tea Party? How about people who favor giving the wealthy the edge over the common person out there? Viewing some of the current polls and elections I'd be willing to bet it's smaller. Certainly if we have a system where the wealthy ( top 1 % ) have the better deal as far as taxes etc. the ratio is a smaller group controling the larger. As a matter of fact the more you lean that way the more you have ruling class.

 

Whatever you say, jimmac. 

Yes I know. When it comes to discussing facts you'd rather make comments like this. What ever you say Jazzy.

You know it takes more than just disagreeing with someone's political viewpoint to make them a Troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes I know. When it comes to discussing facts you'd rather make comments like this. What ever you say Jazzy.

 

You know it takes more than just disagreeing with someone's political viewpoint to make them a Troll.

You keep using that word ("facts"). I do not think it means what you think it means. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes I know. When it comes to discussing facts you'd rather make comments like this. What ever you say Jazzy.

 

You know it takes more than just disagreeing with someone's political viewpoint to make them a Troll.

 

You keep using that word ("facts"). I do not think it means what you think it means. 

Hey you could read the links to the polls and news articles I linked to just the same as anyone else. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them untrue or not valid. And I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough you can see the direction this is all going even though you may not like it.

 Much as you would like to paint this as just my opinion that's just not the case hence the links to support my argument.

Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you but they are facts.

( Just not ones that you like )

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Hey you could read the links to the polls and news articles I linked to just the same as anyone else. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them untrue or not valid. And I'm pretty sure you're intellegent enough you can see the direction this is all going even though you may not like it.

 

 Much as you would like to paint this as just my opinion that's just not the case hence the links to support my argument.

 

Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you but they are facts.

 

( Just not ones that you like )

Whatever you say, jimmac. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

"Plunder and violence would not occur if not for the state."

Is that one of the "facts" you are talking about?

These are not the facts you are looking for.

Quote me where I said that. Oh, wait. I didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


You have never ceased to imply it. For example, when faced with the question of nuclear weapons, you've implied that they are not safe in the hands of government. Without saying so, you're implying that they would be safer in the hands of private persons and enterprise.

I can understand how you would jump to that conclusion, but it is mistaken. You really must ask questions if you want to know what I think, rather than jump to these conclusions in your mind and assume that's what I've said or thought. Our conversations would be much more productive if you did so.

I agree that nuclear weapons are not safe in any one person's hands. (Shocked?) And why are they not? Because human beings are flawed, fallible, vulnerable, easily manipulated. The list goes on and on, right?

But if nuclear weapons are not safe in an individual's hands, how can you possibly conclude that they are safe in the hands of a group of individuals? What is it about a group of individuals that makes them any less fallible, vulnerable, easily manipulated, etc. etc.? If this group of individuals calls themselves a "government" and they get to wear fancy badges and hats, does that suddenly make them all unflawed, infallible, invulnerable, unable to be manipulated?

Does it not concern you at all that the first (and hopefully only) case of nuclear weapons actually being used to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people was perpetrated by a group of individuals calling themselves a government?

Nuclear weapons are not safe. Period. I would love to see them done away with entirely. But they exist. And it is very, very dangerous to concentrate them in the hands of any one flawed individual or group of flawed individuals, no matter how shiny their badges or fancy their hats.

Since we can never again pretend that nuclear weaponry doesn't exist, we have two options:

1. Put the power of nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone who wants it.

2. Put the power of nuclear weapons in the hands of government.

Which do you honestly think is the safer option for the future of the planet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Since we can never again pretend that nuclear weaponry doesn't exist, we have two options:

 

1. Put the power of nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone who wants it.

2. Put the power of nuclear weapons in the hands of government.

 

Which do you honestly think is the safer option for the future of the planet?

Are those really the only two options?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

"Plunder and violence would not occur if not for the state."


Is that one of the "facts" you are talking about?

These are not the facts you are looking for.

Quote me where I said that. Oh, wait. I didn't.

You have never ceased to imply it. For example, when faced with the question of nuclear weapons, you've implied that they are not safe in the hands of government. Without saying so, you're implying that they would be safer in the hands of private persons and enterprise.

I guess he didn't get why I said this in the Libertarian thread :

He was inplying it all over the place. It's like he assumes you have to be a government to abuse power and freedom. However he might have been too busy using his stock answer " Whatever you say jimmac " to actually engage in the conversation..

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Yes. It's telling that you have to ask, instead of simply suggesting a third.

Of course, you have to keep in mind, that there's no way for anyone to restrict someone else's freedom to develop their own nuclear weapon without violation one of your sacred principles. Perhaps you are still trying to figure this out, which is why you didn't rebut.

There you go jumping to conclusions again. You could have just answered my question with a "yes" or "no".

But I believe I've been quite clear and you already know how I'd answer yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I guess he didn't get why I said this in the Libertarian thread :

 

He was inplying it all over the place. It's like he assumes you have to be a government to abuse power and freedom. However he might have been too busy using his stock answer " Whatever you say jimmac " to actually engage in the conversation..

Whatever you say, jimmy.