Ridiculous Seperation Of Church And State

[MissileMan]

I'm not quite sure where you got this 15%figure...not going to waste my time asking for a link...however please take the time to show the difference between the percentage of miscarriages caused by illness,disease and pure simple neglect on the mothers part...your numbers are cute but by no means accurate....! :blah2:

This is only one of several links that claim the same numbers: http://sharedjourney.com/loss.html

This one explains som of the causes: http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/page2.htm

Most are caused by genetic abnormalities.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

A woman's body is her domain. I believe a certain amount of development must take place before a fetus is a human being.

:scratch:

That's one of the 10 warning signs of hopeless dweebism.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

It's not a Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative problem . It's an American problem.

And just to help you understand, I'll stick to little words from now on.

Hey, speak for yerself, buster!!!!!!! I agree with OCA 100%...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Same old shit! You're the only authority on what's right and what's wrong.

Now you're sounding just like a child...or a liberal.

You misread a post again. Have you had your eyes checked lately?
I very clearly stated "if it's kept away from kids". So if an ADULT chooses to watch some porn, what do you care? What if they don't share the smae puritanical views on sex as you do? What if it's a happily married husband and wife who use it to enhance their marriage? You seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the whole world doesn't share your morals...ain't that a bitch?

Once again, I did not misread your post - you obviously missed the point of my response. You are making out that porn should be just fine for adults but keep it away from the kids. I am saying that porn is bad for everyone and there is way too much of it getting into our homes. It's so-called "open-minded" attitudes like yours that causes moral meltdown in society. You think your attitude is progresssive but it's really just perverse.

A woman's body is her domain. I believe a certain amount of development must take place before a fetus is a human being. Also, your God performs way more abortions than all of the abortion clinics combined...in at least 15% of all pregnancies, the woman miscarries.

A baby's body is its domain.

You can believe all you want that a "certain amount of development" must take place before a fetus becomes a human being. However, you liberals cannot point to any particular line of demarcation. That's because you know the real starting point of human life is at fertilization.

 

[MissileMan]

Now you're sounding just like a child...or a liberal.

Speaking of lame, instead of refuting the point you resort to accusing me of being a liberal. How about just answering the question: What makes you the ultimate decision maker of what's right and what's wrong?

I am saying that porn is bad for everyone.

Again, who died and left you in charge of morality...and Jesus Christ is NOT an acceptable answer.

A baby's body is its domain.

Agreed, once it's become a baby.

You can believe all you want that a "certain amount of development" must take place before a fetus becomes a human being. However, you liberals cannot point to any particular line of demarcation. That's because you know the real starting point of human life is at fertilization.

Again with the liberal accusation...what's your malfunction? Don't presume to tell me what I know, or what I believe. Here's the way it's supposed to work...I make an argument, you make a counter-argument (name calling doesn't count as a counter-argument). You don't get to do both.

 

[OCA]

Archangel, you make some extremely good points. But I am starting to wonder about your conservative thought process, since you seem willing to examine both sides of controversial and divisive issues.




YESSSSSSSSSSSSS! THERE IT IS! When conservatives can't win an argument they resort to flaming and personal insults, its the weakest argument known to man. But hey anyway you are simple minded, you don't know any better.

Little girl you need a thicker skin if you're going to throw down with me. Simple minded? Only in your LSD shrouded dreams.

When you decide to actually debate here and quit throwing around the lib catchphrase of the day i'll stop ripping you to shreds.

 

[Annie]

Little girl you need a thicker skin if you're going to throw down with me. Simple minded? Only in your LSD shrouded dreams.

When you decide to actually debate here and quit throwing around the lib catchphrase of the day i'll stop ripping you to shreds.

 

[OCA]

I know, I know but its been a while since we've had fresh meat around here.

 

[Annie]

I know, I know but its been a while since we've had fresh meat around here.

Hope it's worth it. You know best.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Speaking of lame, instead of refuting the point you resort to accusing me of being a liberal. How about just answering the question: What makes you the ultimate decision maker of what's right and what's wrong?

The vote.

Voting is how such societal issues are decided because voting reflects the beliefs of the people. It is the liberals who want to circumvent the vote. In case you haven't noticed the majority of the voters are on my side of this argument. It is the "minority rights" liberals who are stepping on the rights of the voters.

Again, who died and left you in charge of morality...and Jesus Christ is NOT an acceptable answer.

Once again, the vote of the people.

If we were to follow your relativistic logic that everybody should be able to follow his own set of sick morals, society will decay and fall apart. It doesn't matter where the morals come from, it is the democratic vote of the people that should rule over the rules of society. You will notice that many of our rules and laws are based in morality. In the case of liberals, they want the rules to NOT be based in morality...only in the power of the State. If you will think this through carefully you will see where the left wing wants to take us politically. A moral society must be unraveled first before it can be changed into something new and different.

Agreed, once it's become a baby.

A baby is a baby. If your wife became very happily pregnant and you maliciously and deliberately punched her at 2.5 months causing the baby/fetus to die, you think she might consider you a murderer of her baby?

Again with the liberal accusation...what's your malfunction? Don't presume to tell me what I know, or what I believe. Here's the way it's supposed to work...I make an argument, you make a counter-argument (name calling doesn't count as a counter-argument). You don't get to do both.

Can u please knock off the ridiculous personal tantrums? You don't hold the rule book as to "the way it's supposed to work". I called you a liberal because you are professing liberal ideas. So what if you are a libertarian or a "centrist" Democrat or even a "centrist" Republican instead of a full-blown Left Wing Liberal? Liberal is just a handy label which covers the political leaning of your professed ideas that I am arguing against.

 

[Annie]

The vote.

Voting is how such societal issues are decided because voting reflects the beliefs of the people. It is the liberals who want to circumvent the vote. In case you haven't noticed the majority of the voters are on my side of this argument. It is the "minority rights" liberals who are stepping on the rights of the voters.



Once again, the vote of the people.

If we were to follow your relativistic logic that everybody should be able to follow his own set of sick morals, society will decay and fall apart. It doesn't matter where the morals come from, it is the democratic vote of the people that should rule over the rules of society. You will notice that many of our rules and laws are based in morality. In the case of liberals, they want the rules to NOT be based in morality...only in the power of the State. If you will think this through carefully you will see where the left wing wants to take us politically. A moral society must be unraveled first before it can be changed into something new and different.



A baby is a baby. If your wife became very happily pregnant and you maliciously and deliberately punched her at 2.5 months causing the baby/fetus to die, you think she might consider you a murderer of her baby?



Can u please knock off the ridiculous personal tantrums? You don't hold the rule book as to "the way it's supposed to work". I called you a liberal because you are professing liberal ideas. So what if you are a libertarian or a "centrist" Democrat or even a "centrist" Republican instead of a full-blown Left Wing Liberal? Liberal is just a handy label which covers the political leaning of your professed ideas that I am arguing against.

I really don't mean to jump into a broohaha, but you and I probably agree on 9 out of 10 issues. With that said, Missile Man has a very good point, in that we are a republic, not a direct democracy. This was done for a reason, whether we like it or not, it was to protect the minority from the majority, giving a 'cooling off' period if you will. I am not so sure it's working anymore.

I was sure that many on the right, would come to see that the interference of the feds in the Schiavo case was a mistake-well meaning, but still a mistake in values. It hasn't happened. Many on the right, myself included, will accuse the left of being in lockstep with an agenda. Unfortunately so is the Right on some serious issues.

I am for minimal taxes on all; very limited federal intervention on laws that effect us day-to-day; limited state interference of schools and municipalities. The less government the better.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I really don't mean to jump into a broohaha, but you and I probably agree on 9 out of 10 issues. With that said, Missile Man has a very good point, in that we are a republic, not a direct democracy. This was done for a reason, whether we like it or not, it was to protect the minority from the majority, giving a 'cooling off' period if you will. I am not so sure it's working anymore.

I was sure that many on the right, would come to see that the interference of the feds in the Schiavo case was a mistake-well meaning, but still a mistake in values. It hasn't happened. Many on the right, myself included, will accuse the left of being in lockstep with an agenda. Unfortunately so is the Right on some serious issues.

I am for minimal taxes on all; very limited federal intervention on laws that effect us day-to-day; limited state interference of schools and municipalities. The less government the better.

How does having a republic instead of a direct democracy affect the representation of the people other than putting up a sort of barrier that allows a step for measured discussion instead of mass hysteria? The left wing argument for "minority rights" is specious. Everybody has the same rights under the Constitution. Everybody has the right to vote (through their reps) on laws that affect them. But when liberal judges go around the laws created by the people or make new ones, that is when we got a real problem in our system.

The Schiavo case was another one of the judicial system not following the rules. When one branch does not follow the law, is it not right to step in especially when a life is at stake? Andrew McCarthy wrote a very good article after the autopsy results came back.

Here is the point. We ordinarily don’t permit the state to kill people lightly. If the most heinous capital murderer is involved, we demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every critical element that must be established at trial and sentencing — and we permit years upon years of appeals and reviews to make absolutely certain we get it right before the state-sanctioned killing happens.

In the PVS context, a similar level of certainty should be required. As of now, it has not been. But at a minimum we are supposed to have clear and convincing evidence before the killing happens that (a) the person really is in a PVS, and (b) the decision to end life at that hopeless stage is a personal one — one which reflects the true wishes of the stricken victim, not the choice of those burdened with her care.
-----------
So if an apology is called for, here’s what it should be: I’m sorry that some who championed the outcome in the Schiavo case won’t just come out and say what they really think. Namely, that some lives are simply not worth living or defending. And the legal protections are just trifles.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506171321.asp

 

[Bonnie]

There is a separation of church and state because the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion. That is why there is no "state" religion.
That is what always confuses me about extreme conservatives. How can they howl about the unjustness of Arabic countries forcing people to be Muslims, when they want to force everyone here to be Christians?

The world is a very diverse place. People worship God in a great variety of ways. Doesn't matter if His name is God, Buddah or Allah. The principles of Hindu, Shinto, Anglican, Morman and various other beliefs are basically the same.

Quit being narrow minded and accept the diversity of all cultures.

Memerize this cliche'd speech from one of your socialistic professors??

Your missing the point here Gabby, religious people are not looking to force religion upon everyone, but rather to not have all religion forcebly removed from every public venue.

Here's a cliche for you, It's not freedom FROM religion but freedom OF Religion............

 

[acludem]

I'm sure all you righties who remember me, are just thrilled to see me pop back up after a few months absence...but I look forward to getting back to some good, clean intelligent debate.

Anyhoo, as for the separation of church and state it is written into the Constitution, by the very fact that the document that sets up our government specifically leaves out all mention of religion. The two people most responsible for the final product, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin were both adamant about separation of church and state.

When religion and government mix you end up with theocracy (see Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Spanish inquisition, etc.). Historically theocracies become repressive regimes. Religion and democracy simply don't mix in the sense that a truly democratic government cannot recognize any religion. To do so would specifically deny a segment of the population (those who do not subscribe to the particular religion adopted by the government, which for most people here would be Christianity) full participation. This is the antithesis of democracy, representative or otherwise.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

I'm sure all you righties who remember me, are just thrilled to see me pop back up after a few months absence...but I look forward to getting back to some good, clean intelligent debate.

Anyhoo, as for the separation of church and state it is written into the Constitution, by the very fact that the document that sets up our government specifically leaves out all mention of religion. The two people most responsible for the final product, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin were both adamant about separation of church and state.

When religion and government mix you end up with theocracy (see Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Spanish inquisition, etc.). Historically theocracies become repressive regimes. Religion and democracy simply don't mix in the sense that a truly democratic government cannot recognize any religion. To do so would specifically deny a segment of the population (those who do not subscribe to the particular religion adopted by the government, which for most people here would be Christianity) full participation. This is the antithesis of democracy, representative or otherwise.

acludem

Actually I AM thrilled to have you back----your bunch has been busy bees lately and I keep thinking that you might be able to explain a few things. It's awful late tho and I just have so many questions. i could probably sum it all up by just asking you "WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE ACLU THINKING?"

 

[MissileMan]

The vote.

Voting is how such societal issues are decided because voting reflects the beliefs of the people. It is the liberals who want to circumvent the vote. In case you haven't noticed the majority of the voters are on my side of this argument. It is the "minority rights" liberals who are stepping on the rights of the voters.

The religious conservatives want to circumvent the law and make everyone live as Christians.

Once again, the vote of the people.

Did I miss the headline where YOU were elected as this country's moral compass? You seem to be living in some fantasy land where you believe that opinion polls and election results equal the law. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

If we were to follow your relativistic logic that everybody should be able to follow his own set of sick morals, society will decay and fall apart. It doesn't matter where the morals come from, it is the democratic vote of the people that should rule over the rules of society. You will notice that many of our rules and laws are based in morality. In the case of liberals, they want the rules to NOT be based in morality...only in the power of the State. If you will think this through carefully you will see where the left wing wants to take us politically. A moral society must be unraveled first before it can be changed into something new and different.

The whole point is that yes...people can follow their own morals as long as it's within the law...get it? That's what the law is for, to set boundaries that we must stay within. It's really simple, I'm not sure why you find this so hard to understand.

A baby is a baby. If your wife became very happily pregnant and you maliciously and deliberately punched her at 2.5 months causing the baby/fetus to die, you think she might consider you a murderer of her baby?

Apples and oranges...I wasn't talking about a 3rd party, only about a woman's right to make that decision.

Can u please knock off the ridiculous personal tantrums? You don't hold the rule book as to "the way it's supposed to work". I called you a liberal because you are professing liberal ideas. So what if you are a libertarian or a "centrist" Democrat or even a "centrist" Republican instead of a full-blown Left Wing Liberal? Liberal is just a handy label which covers the political leaning of your professed ideas that I am arguing against.

Listen up you bible-thumping, slack-jawed, moonshine-swilling, tobacco-chewing, inbred peckerwood...

Wow, you're right. That does add alot to an argument.

Another concept you seem to be having trouble grasping is the possibility that someone can be a conservative without being an extreme-right, fundamentalist zealot. Get used to it.

 

[acludem]

Missileman wrote "Listen up you bible-thumping, slack-jawed, moonshine-swilling, tobacco-chewing, inbred peckerwood..."

:teeth:

I haven't laughed longer at anything in weeks.

Thanks!

 

[nosarcasm]

While Germany is quite a secular place, that even keeps religion out of
political discussion per se usually on the other hand the leader of the
main churches have a seat on the media control commission. Different
religions are taught in school.

I am pretty confident that in the US some compromise can be faught
that christmas can come back into the schools in its christian variety.

 

[NoLabel]

Freedom of religous expression can only be accomplished if the government (regardless of political mandate) stays out of religion, so separation of religion and government is required in a true representative democratic republic. Since everyone is required to support the government thru taxes (sales, fuel, property, income, user, or any other tax), using the government to support a religion decreases the rights of those not in that religion, or for that matter, no religion.

What is going on right now in this administration is the best example I can come up with. The Bush administration is using taxpayer money to support "faith based initiatives". The taxpayer has no say in which initiatives are supported. If a certain initiative is doing very good work, and at a very efficient price, I would say they would have no problem in getting donations to support it. Then the contributors can deduct their donations from their taxes. Would this not be controlling your own money, and keeping church and state separated. At the same time Bush is trying to sell his personal accounts for social security, so that we can controll our own money.

Is this a "flip-flop"? Is this a contradiction? Or, is this just another example of Bush's logical decision making?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The religious conservatives want to circumvent the law and make everyone live as Christians.

Boy, you bought the Left Wing Lies hook, line and sinker, didn't you? There are no religious conservatives that want to circumvent the law and force you to become a Christian. They do, however, want to clean up society from the mess liberals have made of it.

Did I miss the headline where YOU were elected as this country's moral compass? You seem to be living in some fantasy land where you believe that opinion polls and election results equal the law. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

You give me too much credit - I never said I was this country's moral compass. However, are you saying that 11 different state referendums against homosexual marriage are a figment of my imagination?

The whole point is that yes...people can follow their own morals as long as it's within the law...get it? That's what the law is for, to set boundaries that we must stay within. It's really simple, I'm not sure why you find this so hard to understand.

Yes, but how or why do you think laws are made in the first place? Laws are usually based upon beliefs or morals...get it?

Apples and oranges...I wasn't talking about a 3rd party, only about a woman's right to make that decision.

Oh, so the "3rd party" (liberal legal term for baby) -you know - the one being killed - isn't to be considered at all?

Listen up you bible-thumping, slack-jawed, moonshine-swilling, tobacco-chewing, inbred peckerwood...

Wow, you're right. That does add alot to an argument.

Another concept you seem to be having trouble grasping is the possibility that someone can be a conservative without being an extreme-right, fundamentalist zealot. Get used to it.

Finally broke down I see. Liberals aka fake conservatives can only hold up for so long before they crack and say all that abusive stuff they think will replace the empty void of their logic.