Obamacare: The new Godwin's Law that automatically ends all arguments that 'Democrats are better than Republicans'.
I am unsure what you're referencing here but to me anyway, any political philosophy be it Democratic, Neo-Conservative, Republican or Libertarian, is just another religion. America needs more pragmatic leaders and decision makers to extricate ourselves from the mess we're in and solve some very disturbing and pressing problems.
Fiorina's stance was classic neo-con. She's gonna teach all those other countries a lesson, no doubt. Can't mind her own business.
So if the law is violated and the reasons given provide the "violator" with plausible coverage, you don't really care. Is that accurate?
Utterly irrelevant. No, I will not accept your invitation to drift the topic. You are wrong on the facts. They are now corrected, for anyone who cares to know what is true and what is not. End of discussion.
So he's not allowed to care more about the country he lives in, the country where his nearly-trillion dollar company is headquartered in? Why is is hypocritical to care more about something happening in your own back yard?
Also, not like HP had any problems selling to anyone and everyone.
Tim's behavior perfectly matches the definition of hypocrisy "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform." Tim's article in the Washington Post on Monday said "I was never taught, nor do I believe, that religion should be used as an excuse to discriminate." Meanwhile, he remains silent while Saudi Arabia bases their legal system on the religious Sharia Law which practices the purest form of discrimination by executing people for being gay. Bravo Carly for pointing out Tim's hypocrisy - she got the definition right.
How is it special treatment to be treated equally under the law in this country? As you yourself stated this not a theocracy.
Here's the thing. He already gets special treatment under the law. His CHOICE of religion gets him special treatment. When he goes into a bakery and orders a Christian wedding cake, the baker cannot say "sorry, I don't bake cakes for Christians." That illegal. The same "special treatment" he and others like him decry for gays is something they already enjoy.
Let's assume for a moment that being gay is 100% a choice (which, for the record, I think is complete bull**** and something only the most intellectually deficient among us choose to believe). Why does someone's CHOICE of religion secure them special protection under the law when someone's choice of relationship does not?
Here's the thing. He already gets special treatment under the law. His CHOICE of religion gets him special treatment. When he goes into a bakery and orders a Christian wedding cake, the baker cannot say "sorry, I don't bake cakes for Christians." That illegal. The same "special treatment" he and others like him decry for gays is something they already enjoy.
Let's assume for a moment that being gay is 100% a choice (which, for the record, I think is complete bull**** and something only the most intellectually deficient among us choose to believe). Why does someone's CHOICE of religion secure them special protection under the law when someone's choice of relationship does not?
I agree with you. He has the right to practice what ever religion he chooses (or none at all). He does not have the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of society through law. I think the whole thing amounts to pandering to part of the Republican base. They need this constituency to win elections. So why not try to pass a law that essentially will get struck down. Now said politician can say I tried but the activist courts and left wing blah, blah, blah doesn't believe in the Constitution. See what I have done...I'm on your side. We will continue the fight. Vote for me and I'll set you free. What essentially happened here is a disagreement between the business wing and the religious wing of the Republican party. Guess who lost.
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">As to why Christians concentrate so much on the Old Testament vs. Jesus's teachings, that is a mystery to me as well.</span>
Interesting point.
Maybe we should call them OldTestamentians instead of Christians.
Most of today's fundamentalists Christian churches are not that different from the conservative Jews they replaced in that they reject Jesus' teachings and hold to the Laws that He came to supersede. If you understand exactly who the pharisees represent, and why Jesus hated them so, you would see that is what fundamentalists Christians are today.
If you want to live your life according to some made up horseshit from 2000 years ago, fair play to you. Don't assume to discriminate against people who don't.
You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.
Most of today's fundamentalists Christian churches are not that different from the conservative Jews they replaced in that they reject Jesus' teachings and hold to the Laws that He came to supersede. If you understand exactly who the pharisees represent, and why Jesus hated them so, you would see that is what fundamentalists Christians are today.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. Fortunately this forum is full of people who have degrees in history, philosophy, religious studies and literature so no neo-con-Christian brainwashed indoctrinated ditto head is going to get away with any typical talk radio talking point. You are not the person to argue that case though.
You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.
While I might not choose to call the bible "made up horse shit," I would certainly call it an "authored work of art."
What "honest investigation" would lead me to believe otherwise? It was "authored" (in essence, "made up,") no?
Or are you implying it is "the word of God," and that we should take your word on this?
All the Indiana law is meant to do is prevent gay activists from shutting down mom-and-pop businesses who do not wish to be conscripted into the culture wars to honor things they are spiritually repelled by. If I am a Christian (which I personally am not) and I feel that homosexuality is a sin (which I personally do not), it should not be possible for some hate group posing as a "civil rights" organization to send a couple of gay activists into my shop and basically serve me with a legal demand that I perform some service for them at their wedding, be it baking a cake or taking pictures. That's all this Indiana law is meant to do. My sympathies are ENTIRELY with the little shops, the ones some of you are perhaps sending hate mail and death threats to, because those shops have the temerity to NOT AGREE with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality. And let's clear something else up while we're at it. Disagreement is not the same as hatred. They may exist on the same emotional continuum, but they are worlds apart, in the same way that an AK-47 is worlds apart from a Colonial-era musket, though both are firearms. I see far more honest-to-God pedal-to-the-metal hatred on the part of liberals and the left (including in this thread). It's disgusting and it makes my heart sick.
Dear Sestewart, Romans 1 is St. Paul the rallying the persecuted almost 2000 years ago by raging against their oppressors, for something more relevant try 1 Corinthians 8-13 instead.
I heard a similar argument from the right saying that "liberals" (is there anything more demonic in the US!) are hypocrites because they want equality for homosexuals in Indiana, but are also wanting a nuclear deal with Iran, who demonize gay people.
They don't seem to understand that just because you can't make everything better, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make something better.
If Cook and others are able to play a part in making the world a more equal place, good on them.
Same goes for the CEO of Wal Mart who's pressure seems to have had a positive outcome in Alabama.
I believe what you really heard was trolling, because I don't think anyone could be that stupid. It's also silly to point out issues around the world without looking at our own country first.
edit: changed my mind, I'll leave my thoughts on other middle eastern governments out of it
All the Indiana law is meant to do is prevent gay activists from shutting down mom-and-pop businesses who do not wish to be conscripted into the culture wars to honor things they are spiritually repelled by. If I am a Christian (which I personally am not) and I feel that homosexuality is a sin (which I personally do not), it should not be possible for some hate group posing as a "civil rights" organization to send a couple of gay activists into my shop and basically serve me with a legal demand that I perform some service for them at their wedding, be it baking a cake or taking pictures. That's all this Indiana law is meant to do. My sympathies are ENTIRELY with the little shops, the ones some of you are perhaps sending hate mail and death threats to, because those shops have the temerity to NOT AGREE with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality. And let's clear something else up while we're at it. Disagreement is not the same as hatred. They may exist on the same emotional continuum, but they are worlds apart, in the same way that an AK-47 is worlds apart from a Colonial-era musket, though both are firearms. I see far more honest-to-God pedal-to-the-metal hatred on the part of liberals and the left (including in this thread). It's disgusting and it makes my heart sick.
I don't give a crap how they feel. If they want to live in a theocracy, they know where they are. The constitution and the supreme court will kill them back to their own churches and home were religion can be exercise in privacy.
The use of "culture war" means your some GOP zombie reading off a cue card; that's it.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. Fortunately this forum is full of people who have degrees in history, philosophy, religious studies and literature so no neo-con-Christian brainwashed indoctrinated ditto head is going to get away with any typical talk radio talking point. You are not the person to argue that case though.
I,ve read your stuff. You can't talk too. Maybe every one here (including myself...) should just shut the hell up on this subject because this is becoming just tedious. Everyone's said their piece and no ones going to move (as is the case for most discussion on anything relating to religion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif
I agree with you. He has the right to practice what ever religion he chooses (or none at all). He does not have the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of society through law. I think the whole thing amounts to pandering to part of the Republican base. They need this constituency to win elections. So why not try to pass a law that essentially will get struck down. Now said politician can say I tried but the activist courts and left wing blah, blah, blah doesn't believe in the Constitution. See what I have done...I'm on your side. We will continue the fight. Vote for me and I'll set you free. What essentially happened here is a disagreement between the business wing and the religious wing of the Republican party. Guess who lost.
The irony is that this "activist court" is as right wing as it gets. Just thinking of the Hobby Lobby decision and Citizen United decisions make me sick (The US is going full tilt towards a Corporate Government were individuals are mere speed bumps). Maybe they think that Roberts will have another stroke and accidentally support their idiocy...
You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.
The new testament was written decades after the purported facts and selectively edited my man later with a distinct editorial slant by the then current church. Then, it got translated quite a few times from the original were other modifications were made. That's a fact. And yes, scholars will agree on that one.
The old testament is even worse, hundreds and hundreds of years of oral history put down in 8-1 century BC (most in 8-6 century bc) . From WIki
"The process by which scriptures became canons and Bibles was a long one, and its complexities account for the many different Old Testaments which exist today. Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, identifies the Old Testament as "a collection of authoritative texts of *apparently divine* origin that went through a human process of writing and editing."[18] He states that it is not a magical book, nor was it literally written by God and passed to mankind. By about the 5th century BC Jews saw the five books of the Torah (the Old Testament Pentateuch) as having authoritative status; by the 2nd century BC the Prophets had a similar status, although without quite the same level of respect as the Torah; beyond that, the Jewish scriptures were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books"
So, yes, even a ardent catholic would say that it is made up. Fundamentalists (which believe the Bible should be taken litteraly, think different off course.
So, you can spare me the emo response. Doesn't mean it isn't a great text anyway. Or that much of it may confer some wisdom (especially the new testament). BTW, I've got a lot of catholic school behind me: 11 years of it.
All the Indiana law is meant to do is prevent gay activists from shutting down mom-and-pop businesses who do not wish to be conscripted into the culture wars to honor things they are spiritually repelled by. If I am a Christian (which I personally am not) and I feel that homosexuality is a sin (which I personally do not), it should not be possible for some hate group posing as a "civil rights" organization to send a couple of gay activists into my shop and basically serve me with a legal demand that I perform some service for them at their wedding, be it baking a cake or taking pictures. That's all this Indiana law is meant to do. My sympathies are ENTIRELY with the little shops, the ones some of you are perhaps sending hate mail and death threats to, because those shops have the temerity to NOT AGREE with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality. And let's clear something else up while we're at it. Disagreement is not the same as hatred. They may exist on the same emotional continuum, but they are worlds apart, in the same way that an AK-47 is worlds apart from a Colonial-era musket, though both are firearms. I see far more honest-to-God pedal-to-the-metal hatred on the part of liberals and the left (including in this thread). It's disgusting and it makes my heart sick.
And what about an atheist business owner who doesn't want to bake a cake for a Christian bigot wedding? The law says that atheist business owner cannot refuse on the basis of the customer's religion. So someone who is offended by a specific religion is forced by the government to not discriminate but it's ok to let someone discriminate because of religion?
Comments
Obamacare: The new Godwin's Law that automatically ends all arguments that 'Democrats are better than Republicans'.
I am unsure what you're referencing here but to me anyway, any political philosophy be it Democratic, Neo-Conservative, Republican or Libertarian, is just another religion. America needs more pragmatic leaders and decision makers to extricate ourselves from the mess we're in and solve some very disturbing and pressing problems.
Fiorina's stance was classic neo-con. She's gonna teach all those other countries a lesson, no doubt. Can't mind her own business.
So if the law is violated and the reasons given provide the "violator" with plausible coverage, you don't really care. Is that accurate?
Utterly irrelevant. No, I will not accept your invitation to drift the topic. You are wrong on the facts. They are now corrected, for anyone who cares to know what is true and what is not. End of discussion.
Also, not like HP had any problems selling to anyone and everyone.
Here's the thing. He already gets special treatment under the law. His CHOICE of religion gets him special treatment. When he goes into a bakery and orders a Christian wedding cake, the baker cannot say "sorry, I don't bake cakes for Christians." That illegal. The same "special treatment" he and others like him decry for gays is something they already enjoy.
Let's assume for a moment that being gay is 100% a choice (which, for the record, I think is complete bull**** and something only the most intellectually deficient among us choose to believe). Why does someone's CHOICE of religion secure them special protection under the law when someone's choice of relationship does not?
Here's the thing. He already gets special treatment under the law. His CHOICE of religion gets him special treatment. When he goes into a bakery and orders a Christian wedding cake, the baker cannot say "sorry, I don't bake cakes for Christians." That illegal. The same "special treatment" he and others like him decry for gays is something they already enjoy.
Let's assume for a moment that being gay is 100% a choice (which, for the record, I think is complete bull**** and something only the most intellectually deficient among us choose to believe). Why does someone's CHOICE of religion secure them special protection under the law when someone's choice of relationship does not?
I agree with you. He has the right to practice what ever religion he chooses (or none at all). He does not have the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of society through law. I think the whole thing amounts to pandering to part of the Republican base. They need this constituency to win elections. So why not try to pass a law that essentially will get struck down. Now said politician can say I tried but the activist courts and left wing blah, blah, blah doesn't believe in the Constitution. See what I have done...I'm on your side. We will continue the fight. Vote for me and I'll set you free. What essentially happened here is a disagreement between the business wing and the religious wing of the Republican party. Guess who lost.
If Cook was guilty as accused of being the same sort of bigot, then he would try to steer Apple products away from places like the Middle East.
Most of today's fundamentalists Christian churches are not that different from the conservative Jews they replaced in that they reject Jesus' teachings and hold to the Laws that He came to supersede. If you understand exactly who the pharisees represent, and why Jesus hated them so, you would see that is what fundamentalists Christians are today.
You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.
If a lady voted as one of the worst tech CEOs ever actually gets to go to the White House, I really don't know what to say about politics Stateside...
Carly for President........... NOT!!
If a lady voted as one of the worst tech CEOs ever actually gets to go to the White House, I really don't know what to say about politics Stateside...
Trust me, you don't have to worry. She might think of herself as some great person, but she stands no chance. You don't have to worry.
Most of today's fundamentalists Christian churches are not that different from the conservative Jews they replaced in that they reject Jesus' teachings and hold to the Laws that He came to supersede. If you understand exactly who the pharisees represent, and why Jesus hated them so, you would see that is what fundamentalists Christians are today.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. Fortunately this forum is full of people who have degrees in history, philosophy, religious studies and literature so no neo-con-Christian brainwashed indoctrinated ditto head is going to get away with any typical talk radio talking point. You are not the person to argue that case though.
You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.
While I might not choose to call the bible "made up horse shit," I would certainly call it an "authored work of art."
What "honest investigation" would lead me to believe otherwise? It was "authored" (in essence, "made up,") no?
Or are you implying it is "the word of God," and that we should take your word on this?
All the Indiana law is meant to do is prevent gay activists from shutting down mom-and-pop businesses who do not wish to be conscripted into the culture wars to honor things they are spiritually repelled by. If I am a Christian (which I personally am not) and I feel that homosexuality is a sin (which I personally do not), it should not be possible for some hate group posing as a "civil rights" organization to send a couple of gay activists into my shop and basically serve me with a legal demand that I perform some service for them at their wedding, be it baking a cake or taking pictures. That's all this Indiana law is meant to do. My sympathies are ENTIRELY with the little shops, the ones some of you are perhaps sending hate mail and death threats to, because those shops have the temerity to NOT AGREE with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality. And let's clear something else up while we're at it. Disagreement is not the same as hatred. They may exist on the same emotional continuum, but they are worlds apart, in the same way that an AK-47 is worlds apart from a Colonial-era musket, though both are firearms. I see far more honest-to-God pedal-to-the-metal hatred on the part of liberals and the left (including in this thread). It's disgusting and it makes my heart sick.
I heard a similar argument from the right saying that "liberals" (is there anything more demonic in the US!) are hypocrites because they want equality for homosexuals in Indiana, but are also wanting a nuclear deal with Iran, who demonize gay people.
They don't seem to understand that just because you can't make everything better, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make something better.
If Cook and others are able to play a part in making the world a more equal place, good on them.
Same goes for the CEO of Wal Mart who's pressure seems to have had a positive outcome in Alabama.
I believe what you really heard was trolling, because I don't think anyone could be that stupid. It's also silly to point out issues around the world without looking at our own country first.
edit: changed my mind, I'll leave my thoughts on other middle eastern governments out of it
All the Indiana law is meant to do is prevent gay activists from shutting down mom-and-pop businesses who do not wish to be conscripted into the culture wars to honor things they are spiritually repelled by. If I am a Christian (which I personally am not) and I feel that homosexuality is a sin (which I personally do not), it should not be possible for some hate group posing as a "civil rights" organization to send a couple of gay activists into my shop and basically serve me with a legal demand that I perform some service for them at their wedding, be it baking a cake or taking pictures. That's all this Indiana law is meant to do. My sympathies are ENTIRELY with the little shops, the ones some of you are perhaps sending hate mail and death threats to, because those shops have the temerity to NOT AGREE with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality. And let's clear something else up while we're at it. Disagreement is not the same as hatred. They may exist on the same emotional continuum, but they are worlds apart, in the same way that an AK-47 is worlds apart from a Colonial-era musket, though both are firearms. I see far more honest-to-God pedal-to-the-metal hatred on the part of liberals and the left (including in this thread). It's disgusting and it makes my heart sick.
I don't give a crap how they feel. If they want to live in a theocracy, they know where they are. The constitution and the supreme court will kill them back to their own churches and home were religion can be exercise in privacy.
The use of "culture war" means your some GOP zombie reading off a cue card; that's it.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. Fortunately this forum is full of people who have degrees in history, philosophy, religious studies and literature so no neo-con-Christian brainwashed indoctrinated ditto head is going to get away with any typical talk radio talking point. You are not the person to argue that case though.
I,ve read your stuff. You can't talk too. Maybe every one here (including myself...) should just shut the hell up on this subject because this is becoming just tedious. Everyone's said their piece and no ones going to move (as is the case for most discussion on anything relating to religion).
I agree with you. He has the right to practice what ever religion he chooses (or none at all). He does not have the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of society through law. I think the whole thing amounts to pandering to part of the Republican base. They need this constituency to win elections. So why not try to pass a law that essentially will get struck down. Now said politician can say I tried but the activist courts and left wing blah, blah, blah doesn't believe in the Constitution. See what I have done...I'm on your side. We will continue the fight. Vote for me and I'll set you free. What essentially happened here is a disagreement between the business wing and the religious wing of the Republican party. Guess who lost.
The irony is that this "activist court" is as right wing as it gets. Just thinking of the Hobby Lobby decision and Citizen United decisions make me sick (The US is going full tilt towards a Corporate Government were individuals are mere speed bumps). Maybe they think that Roberts will have another stroke and accidentally support their idiocy...
You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.
The new testament was written decades after the purported facts and selectively edited my man later with a distinct editorial slant by the then current church. Then, it got translated quite a few times from the original were other modifications were made. That's a fact. And yes, scholars will agree on that one.
The old testament is even worse, hundreds and hundreds of years of oral history put down in 8-1 century BC (most in 8-6 century bc) . From WIki
"The process by which scriptures became canons and Bibles was a long one, and its complexities account for the many different Old Testaments which exist today. Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, identifies the Old Testament as "a collection of authoritative texts of *apparently divine* origin that went through a human process of writing and editing."[18] He states that it is not a magical book, nor was it literally written by God and passed to mankind. By about the 5th century BC Jews saw the five books of the Torah (the Old Testament Pentateuch) as having authoritative status; by the 2nd century BC the Prophets had a similar status, although without quite the same level of respect as the Torah; beyond that, the Jewish scriptures were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books"
So, yes, even a ardent catholic would say that it is made up. Fundamentalists (which believe the Bible should be taken litteraly, think different off course.
So, you can spare me the emo response. Doesn't mean it isn't a great text anyway. Or that much of it may confer some wisdom (especially the new testament). BTW, I've got a lot of catholic school behind me: 11 years of it.
And what about an atheist business owner who doesn't want to bake a cake for a Christian bigot wedding? The law says that atheist business owner cannot refuse on the basis of the customer's religion. So someone who is offended by a specific religion is forced by the government to not discriminate but it's ok to let someone discriminate because of religion?