Republican Religious Right - building the ideal country

[Avatar4321]

So not having kids is a sin?

Did Jesus have kids?

If so, he's a sinner and couldn't be God- you just debunked your entire religion in your homophobic ramblings.

How so? because you say Christ has no children does that mean He didnt? What a stupid argument.

Christ fullfilled every commandment. Now if you dont understand that, Im not going to explain it to you. But what I can tell you is the first commandment has never been revoked and is still in full effect.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So not having kids is a sin?

Did Jesus have kids?

If so, he's a sinner and couldn't be God- you just debunked your entire religion in your homophobic ramblings.

How so? because you say Christ has no children does that mean He didnt? What a stupid argument.

Christ fullfilled every commandment. Now if you dont understand that, Im not going to explain it to you. But what I can tell you is the first commandment has never been revoked and is still in full effect.

So you're saying he had children? Was it w/ Mary Magdalene? Do you realize the Diviinci Code is fiction?

Face it- you've no leg to stand on and your pathetic attempts to use the bible to justify your homophobia have failed.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you're saying he had children? Was it w/ Mary Magdalene? Do you realize the Diviinci Code is fiction?

Face it- you've no leg to stand on and your pathetic attempts to use the bible to justify your homophobia have failed.

Haha. Because you dont understand doesnt mean I dont. And I havent quoted the Bible at all. Nor am i afraid of homosexuals. I simply wish them to come to Christ and over come the natural man as I wish all men would do.

 

[del]

What do they really want?

The conservative Republicans have been very clear in their opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
They say they don’t want to get rid of all the gays, merely lead them to God and help them stop being gay.
They say they don’t want to stop teaching “science”, but merely want to add a “religious element”.

Now, the question becomes, “What is the goal?”

Say they were somehow able to “turn all the gays straight”. How would that help marriage? How would that help straight marriage to end the 50% divorce rate? Or the huge number of people participating in the “swinger’s” lifestyle?

So they add a “religious element” to science. What would that do to better science? What great discoveries will come from adding a “religious element”? How will that help people? What great religious conservative scientists right now will “lead the charge”?

Say they are able to completely outlaw abortion. What will they do to keep those women who didn’t want children from abusing the very children they didn’t want? How will they ensure these children grow up safe and well taken care of as well as being loved?

We know what the religious conservative Republicans want to change. But what do they want to change into? What is the goal?

I have never heard the conservative Republicans speak of the “ideal” country. If they could design the perfect country, what would it be?

 

[rdean]

I think that what this post has demonstrated is a couple of things.

First, many on the right simply aren't interested. Can't blame them. There's lots of threads I don't respond to. Just not that interested in the subject.

But from the ones that did respond, no one really "described" the ideal country.

To me, that would mean things like, "The economy would be farm based, or technology based, or service based".

Maybe "all education would be free" or "higher education would be limited to those who can handle it" or "ban all education".

Maybe "religion would be mandatory" or "religion would be banned" or "only one religion is allowed" or "religion is limited to churches" or "religion is a requirement in public schools".

For liberals, they will go on endlessly about what they believe a "perfect" country would be like. For conservatives, it always seems to be about restriction and bans. The things they don't like, they eliminate instead of "deal with".

I don't know, maybe I'm just harsh. I notice the same thing when it comes to "heaven". Ask 20 religious people to describe "heaven" and you will get 20 very different descriptions and to me, they always sound terrible.

 

[MajikMyst]

I doubt to many on the right will respond to a thread like this in earnest as it forces them to face a truth.. They don't know what kind of country they want... I like the answer of a Christian Saudi Arabia.. One that only caters the special interest of Christians.. Science is in the back seat in school and everyone goes to church on Sundays.. It would be law of course..

There would be no equal rights, unless you were a Christian, but you would only be christian if you met certian criteria.. Everyone would believe the same thing and there would be no growth or debate.. Imagine a nation full of Palins and Becks!! Both with the IQ of about 12..

Hmmmm.. Sounds like a few on this forum..

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think that what this post has demonstrated is a couple of things.

First, many on the right simply aren't interested. Can't blame them. There's lots of threads I don't respond to. Just not that interested in the subject.

But from the ones that did respond, no one really "described" the ideal country.

To me, that would mean things like, "The economy would be farm based, or technology based, or service based".

Maybe "all education would be free" or "higher education would be limited to those who can handle it" or "ban all education".

Maybe "religion would be mandatory" or "religion would be banned" or "only one religion is allowed" or "religion is limited to churches" or "religion is a requirement in public schools".

For liberals, they will go on endlessly about what they believe a "perfect" country would be like. For conservatives, it always seems to be about restriction and bans. The things they don't like, they eliminate instead of "deal with".

I don't know, maybe I'm just harsh. I notice the same thing when it comes to "heaven". Ask 20 religious people to describe "heaven" and you will get 20 very different descriptions and to me, they always sound terrible.

Not interested? So you ignore the questions I posed and then say those on the right "simply aren't interested". The fact is conservatives don't have any utopian ideas like you idiots on the left, that's why you won't see many if any conservatives playing along with your utopian fantasies. My advice to you is grow the fuck up and understand that this country is not nor will it ever be perfect.

 

[jez90nj]

If homosexuals gave up their sinful lives and lived a godly life, there would be many more children in the next generation. In fact, generations of people who otherwise would not exist would have an opportunity to live and exist. Like wise with eliminating abortion.

And who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to force a "godly" life on anyone? Fact of the matter is, not everyone feels the same as you. Not everyone believes in the same god, not everyone has the same morals. The "salvation" of others is not your concern, but theirs; one ought to be concerned with his own, not that of others. Homosexuality is not something anyone chooses to be; genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger. I believe God has a plan for all of us, and if he made people in that way--and I do believe people are made in that way, not that it is done by any choosing on their part--He did so for a reason. Far be it from me to question Him.

Remember, judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If homosexuals gave up their sinful lives and lived a godly life, there would be many more children in the next generation. In fact, generations of people who otherwise would not exist would have an opportunity to live and exist. Like wise with eliminating abortion.

And who the hell are you to force a "godly" life on anyone? Fact of the matter is, not everyone feels the same as you. Not everyone believes in the same god as you, not everyone has the same morals as you. The "salvation" of others is not your concern, but theirs; you ought to be concerned with your own.

Remember, judge not lest ye be judged.

In your rant you failed to to dispell anything that Avatar has stated. And Avatars comment was in no way forceful, perhaps your guilty conscience is catching up with you.

 

[jez90nj]

In your rant you failed to to dispell anything that Avatar has stated. And Avatars comment was in no way forceful, perhaps your guilty conscience is catching up with you.

Perhaps I was somewhat too forceful in that; I apologize. But nevertheless, I just want to know--why? Why is this such a bone of contention? To me, it seems like something personal--something that the courts and the Church ought to stay out of. I don't think that a given religious sect has the right to pass judgment on those who are not its followers. I don't think that government has a place using religious principles to make its laws. (it is true that certain religious principles and certain ethical principles coincide, but not always) Although I understand the idea of majority rule, why is it impossible to satisfy both groups at the same time, especially when the acts of one do not directly impact the other? The idea of "Because the Bible says so" does not satisfy me in this respect as not everyone in this country believes in the same "Bible," if they believe in a Holy Book at all. I see these as two independent issues.

 

[editec]

What do they really want?

The conservative Republicans have been very clear in their opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
They say they don’t want to get rid of all the gays, merely lead them to God and help them stop being gay.
They say they don’t want to stop teaching “science”, but merely want to add a “religious element”.

Now, the question becomes, “What is the goal?”

Say they were somehow able to “turn all the gays straight”. How would that help marriage? How would that help straight marriage to end the 50% divorce rate? Or the huge number of people participating in the “swinger’s” lifestyle?

So they add a “religious element” to science. What would that do to better science? What great discoveries will come from adding a “religious element”? How will that help people? What great religious conservative scientists right now will “lead the charge”?

Say they are able to completely outlaw abortion. What will they do to keep those women who didn’t want children from abusing the very children they didn’t want? How will they ensure these children grow up safe and well taken care of as well as being loved?

We know what the religious conservative Republicans want to change. But what do they want to change into? What is the goal?

I have never heard the conservative Republicans speak of the “ideal” country. If they could design the perfect country, what would it be?

The RNC wants exactly what the DNC seems to want.

Power and money.

 

[rdean]

In your rant you failed to to dispell anything that Avatar has stated. And Avatars comment was in no way forceful, perhaps your guilty conscience is catching up with you.

Perhaps I was somewhat too forceful in that; I apologize. But nevertheless, I just want to know--why? Why is this such a bone of contention? To me, it seems like something personal--something that the courts and the Church ought to stay out of. I don't think that a given religious sect has the right to pass judgment on those who are not its followers. I don't think that government has a place using religious principles to make its laws. (it is true that certain religious principles and certain ethical principles coincide, but not always) Although I understand the idea of majority rule, why is it impossible to satisfy both groups at the same time, especially when the acts of one do not directly impact the other? The idea of "Because the Bible says so" does not satisfy me in this respect as not everyone in this country believes in the same "Bible," if they believe in a Holy Book at all. I see these as two independent issues.

That is the real question. Considering that only 3 to 5% of the population are gay. Most of the time, when you ask a conservative "do you know any gay people?" they will say, "And I don't want to either". They are so upset about people they don't know and have no interaction with who don't afffect them in any way.
At the same time, we know for sure that poverty is the main cause of crime. We know that divorce is close to if not "the" main cause of poverty. And we know that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Yet, the gays are so important.
If gays have no impact in any way on conseravtives, why not just leave them alone and let them do what they want. Besides, marriage has been shown to build wealth, bring stability and cut down on disease. Seems conservatives would support that. Guess not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In your rant you failed to to dispell anything that Avatar has stated. And Avatars comment was in no way forceful, perhaps your guilty conscience is catching up with you.

Perhaps I was somewhat too forceful in that; I apologize. But nevertheless, I just want to know--why? Why is this such a bone of contention? To me, it seems like something personal--something that the courts and the Church ought to stay out of. I don't think that a given religious sect has the right to pass judgment on those who are not its followers. I don't think that government has a place using religious principles to make its laws. (it is true that certain religious principles and certain ethical principles coincide, but not always) Although I understand the idea of majority rule, why is it impossible to satisfy both groups at the same time, especially when the acts of one do not directly impact the other? The idea of "Because the Bible says so" does not satisfy me in this respect as not everyone in this country believes in the same "Bible," if they believe in a Holy Book at all. I see these as two independent issues.

The "bone of contention" is the fact that innocent lives are being murdered on a daily basis and groups like Planned Parenthood are making the bulk of their money (our tax dollars)from these murders.

Planned Parenthood Director in Texas Resigns, Watched Ultrasound of Abortion

To say that those that engage in abortions are murderers is not "passing judgement", it's calling them exactly what they are.

 

[California Girl]

Let me make this very clear. Unless you are a millionaire, you are a fool to be voting GOP. Hell, even millionaires got fucked by the GOP the last 8 years. The ones with only a few millions.

Only an idiot votes because of God Gays and Guns. The GOP was smart to use such wedge issues. They go after the ignorant, racists, religious and greedy votes.

I don't care if every girl in America gets an abortion if the GOP send all the good jobs oveseas.

All you broke ass Republicans need to join the Democratic party. Then we can split the party between the centrists and the liberals. Then we could get the Joe Lieberman's out of Washington.

But instead broke ass Righties don't realize that they are voting outside of their pay grades. They don't like liberals because they don't understand the meaning so they are very much like the house slaves back in the 1800's who liked things the way they were.

You righties don't realize you have more in common with the black gay muslim abortion doctor than you do with the GOP.

Let me make this very clear. Anyone who votes for the DNC or the GOP as they currently exist is a fool.

All you idiot Dems and disgruntled Repubs need to start developing independent thought.

I am always entertained by idiots who think we should all think like they do, when the evidence suggests that they lack the ability to think at all.

 

[jez90nj]

To say that those that engage in abortions are murderers is not "passing judgement", it's calling them exactly what they are.

Two things:

1. Clearly, not everyone feels that way.
2. I think we're talking about two entirely seperate subjects. To this point, I've refrained from bringing abortion into the discussion because I myself do not have a clear answer on that front.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

To say that those that engage in abortions are murderers is not "passing judgement", it's calling them exactly what they are.

Two things:

1. Clearly, not everyone feels that way.
2. I think we're talking about two entirely seperate subjects. To this point, I've refrained from bringing abortion into the discussion because I myself do not have a clear answer on that front.

Of course if your murdering children in the womb you wouldn't want to be called a murderer, but it doesn't change the fact that you are taking the life of another human and ...well.. that makes you a murderer.

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things.

 

[rdean]

To say that those that engage in abortions are murderers is not "passing judgement", it's calling them exactly what they are.

Two things:

1. Clearly, not everyone feels that way.
2. I think we're talking about two entirely seperate subjects. To this point, I've refrained from bringing abortion into the discussion because I myself do not have a clear answer on that front.

Of course if your murdering children in the womb you wouldn't want to be called a murderer, but it doesn't change the fact that you are taking the life of another human and ...well.. that makes you a murderer.

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things.

Gee, I wonder how many of those abortions come from people who are getting a divorce?

 

[jez90nj]

Of course if your murdering children in the womb you wouldn't want to be called a murderer, but it doesn't change the fact that you are taking the life of another human and ...well.. that makes you a murderer.

...

Non-living things do not do these things.

You have still failed to address the fact that I am speaking of sexuality where you are speaking on abortion--albeit controversial, the issues are markedly different.

 

[Toronado3800]

Mainstream republicans give lip service to abortion, just enough to sucker the one issue pro-life voters. If Republicans got elected President 20 of the next 28 years and nothing was done against abortion rights you'd feel pretty cheated I'd bet.

I think the Republican economic ideal has its merits. Small government letting folks do what they want. Then again they're not shutting down the Patent office, FCC and other aspects of pro-business big government so there go the idealist votes and we're down to pragmatism.

The Republican gay ideal, big government regulating how you can have sex and creating regulations on marriage, makes republicans look a little hypocritical.

 

[Immanuel]

So far, those on the Republican Religious Right have expressed what they don't like or what they "imagined" they don't like. But where are the "solutions"?

Please give a description of this "ideal" country. Why is that so hard?

The problem is that you project your beliefs into our mouths.

I am religious and I consider myself slightly right of center although, I am finding myself stepping across the center line occasionally and having to slap myself to get back to the "Good Guys" side. But the last thing in the world that I or my religious friends want is government dictating to us our faith. We are as devoted to the idea of the Separation of Church and State as you are because we don't want our faith in the hands of the government.

Now there are some religious talking heads out there who come off as wanting to make this country into a theocracy, but, I liken them more to the Pharisees of the time of Jesus than to Christians.

I don't want my President, Senator or Representative to act like my pastor. I would like to be left alone in my religious faith and I would welcome the chance to converse with you or anyone else who was willing to converse about faith. What I won't do is knock on doors forcing others to listen to me.

Immie