Religion and Politics

[Penelope]

View attachment 434273
Anti-abortion demonstrators outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, one of two abortion clinics in the city.Credit...Brandon Dill for The New York Times
Abortion Capital of Bible Belt? Tennessee Vote Tests That Idea - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
----------------------------------------
What do you call this?
Many fake Christians are in politics.

You're claiming that the opposition to infanticide and offering help is not Christian? You're ridiculous. Abortion is murder, not a legitimate right at all.

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

 

[LittleNipper]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

I'm sorry, but I really am not following the parallel you're trying to draw.

It was the Democratic Party that instigated the removal of GOD from the National Public Education Forum when Kennedy was President. It is a Democrat who is minister at that National Public "Shrine". Does that make it any easier to follow?

Thank God they did.

The Democratic Party should stay out of the education business and return it to the community level where the citizens could decide if the Bible is a worthy textbook or not. We don't need governmental interference nor their opinions.

 

[LittleNipper]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

I'm sorry, but I really am not following the parallel you're trying to draw.

It was the Democratic Party that instigated the removal of GOD from the National Public Education Forum when Kennedy was President. It is a Democrat who is minister at that National Public "Shrine". Does that make it any easier to follow?

Nope. Still no actual parallel.

 

[BreezeWood]

View attachment 434273
Anti-abortion demonstrators outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, one of two abortion clinics in the city.Credit...Brandon Dill for The New York Times
Abortion Capital of Bible Belt? Tennessee Vote Tests That Idea - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
----------------------------------------
What do you call this?
Many fake Christians are in politics.

You're claiming that the opposition to infanticide and offering help is not Christian? You're ridiculous. Abortion is murder, not a legitimate right at all.

.

Abortion is murder, not a legitimate right at all.

.
- an abortion is nothing more than a woman's choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The choice is to engage in sex or not to engage in sex. The pregnancy is GOD's decision.

.

The choice is to engage in sex or not to engage in sex. The pregnancy is GOD's decision.

.
obviously not theirs alone - there have been over 62,502,904 abortions after the roe/v/wade decision was enacted in 1973.

 

[LittleNipper]

View attachment 434273
Anti-abortion demonstrators outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, one of two abortion clinics in the city.Credit...Brandon Dill for The New York Times
Abortion Capital of Bible Belt? Tennessee Vote Tests That Idea - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
----------------------------------------
What do you call this?
Many fake Christians are in politics.

You're claiming that the opposition to infanticide and offering help is not Christian? You're ridiculous. Abortion is murder, not a legitimate right at all.

.

Abortion is murder, not a legitimate right at all.

.
- an abortion is nothing more than a woman's choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The choice is to engage in sex or not to engage in sex. The pregnancy is GOD's decision.

.

The choice is to engage in sex or not to engage in sex. The pregnancy is GOD's decision.

.
obviously not theirs alone - there have been over 62,502,904 abortions after the roe/v/wade decision was enacted in 1973.

Some women have had more than one abortion. Do Black lives matter to Blacks?
CTOBER 19, 2017INFOGRAPHIC
Abortion rates by race and ethnicity

 

[Ringtone]

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

 

[Penelope]

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

No, abortion is not infanticide. Learn the difference.

 

[LittleNipper]

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

No, abortion is not infanticide. Learn the difference.

Abortion is most differently the destruction of a living thing. And that living thing is most differently a human baby that will have the capacity to both be loved and give love.

 

[Ringtone]

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

No, abortion is not infanticide. Learn the difference.

Nonsense. Your unwittingly making a theological claim. Yours is the very same monstrous filth of the Nazis.

 

[BreezeWood]

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

No, abortion is not infanticide. Learn the difference.

Nonsense. Your unwittingly making a theological claim. Yours is the very same monstrous filth of the Nazis.

.

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

No, abortion is not infanticide. Learn the difference.

Nonsense. Your unwittingly making a theological claim. Yours is the very same monstrous filth of the Nazis.

.
how's that ringtone - that's your witting claim and one the 1st amendment is written for to prevent people like you from impinging your religious views on others - from your reichstag church, it is you who is the nazie.

due process - the civil war amendments - are not theological, now you know ringtone.

 

[surada]

Maybe you noticed. Im a spiritual, religious person.

But I agree with some thinkers, like Karl Marx but only in a historical context, that religion is opium for the people and “Then as well as now, kings and priests, leaders and politicians, have used religions more to enslave people than to free them.”
― ~Sw. Chidananda Tirtha


I dont want that we get ruled by some priest kings, but then again, now it is different, and that is a thing of the past. Now there are diverse types of mechanisms of power, and how people get brainwashed and you dont need only religion anymore for it and it is being replaced, and I think religion is good thing to give us hope, faith, values etc. but only if it is practiced by our free choice, and free will which was in the past not like that but now it is.
Any opinions? I guess you wouldnt have expected that from me, by now, what I have posted about religion so far. Right?

You can't be religious and spiritual at the same time.lol!

Says who?

Being spiritual does not mean you have to stop believing in God or Jesus.

Can You Be Both spiritual And Religious As A Christian at ...

https://forums.catholic.com/t/can-you-be-both

...
Sep 21, 2017 · Of course one can be both spiritual and religious at the same time - they truly do go hand in hand, don’t they? The liturgy and the Sacraments are beautiful and wonderful - but Jesus said that the way we manifest to the world our “spiritual union” (discipleship) is by our Love. (John13:34-35)

 

[Hollie]

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

The extremist religious nutters do tend to tend to use terms and slogans they don't understand. It is indeed a complicated issue, which is why simplistic, absolutist views such as presented by you religious extremists are woefully inadequate.

The fact that there cannot be concensus does not dictate that we mindlessly leap to an absolutist proscription. As with most contested matters of ajudication, we are dealing with conflicting recognized rights: a woman to control her womb, a fetus to develop into an individual. Rowe vs Wade has deliniated the specifics of such a compromise, recognizing as a superior matter of privacy the right of a woman to control a pregnancy before that zygote/embryo/fetus has become a viable entity, and granting that fetus a protected status once its development has reached a definitive stage. There is always a nebulous area in between that can be contested, but to legislate either one extremist position or the other is not an equitable approach.

The extremist religious nutters such as you on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Rowe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

As with so many issues that are contentious and difficult, it's fortunate that we have rule of law as opposed to rule of religious zealot to achieve reasonable compromises

 

[Penelope]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

I'm sorry, but I really am not following the parallel you're trying to draw.

It was the Democratic Party that instigated the removal of GOD from the National Public Education Forum when Kennedy was President. It is a Democrat who is minister at that National Public "Shrine". Does that make it any easier to follow?

Thank God they did.

The Democratic Party should stay out of the education business and return it to the community level where the citizens could decide if the Bible is a worthy textbook or not. We don't need governmental interference nor their opinions.

That is you, and keep religion out of politics.

 

[LittleNipper]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

I'm sorry, but I really am not following the parallel you're trying to draw.

It was the Democratic Party that instigated the removal of GOD from the National Public Education Forum when Kennedy was President. It is a Democrat who is minister at that National Public "Shrine". Does that make it any easier to follow?

Thank God they did.

The Democratic Party should stay out of the education business and return it to the community level where the citizens could decide if the Bible is a worthy textbook or not. We don't need governmental interference nor their opinions.

That is you, and keep religion out of politics.

Don't tell me what is religious and I wont tell you what is political.

 

[surada]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

I'm sorry, but I really am not following the parallel you're trying to draw.

It was the Democratic Party that instigated the removal of GOD from the National Public Education Forum when Kennedy was President. It is a Democrat who is minister at that National Public "Shrine". Does that make it any easier to follow?

Thank God they did.

The Democratic Party should stay out of the education business and return it to the community level where the citizens could decide if the Bible is a worthy textbook or not. We don't need governmental interference nor their opinions.

Would you discriminate against Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons and atheists at the local level?

 

[Penelope]

Warnock, 51, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia against incumbent Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is an ordained minister and since 2005 preaches at the Ebeneezer Baptist church in Atlanta. This church presently is a NATIONAL SITE, sits in a NATIONAL PARK, and is maintained by the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. And the right REV. Warnock, gets to preach whatever he sees fit from that NATIONALLY funded religious sanctuary.

So, why exactly, is prayer, Bible reading, and creationism not allowed in Public schools? Double standard?

I'm sorry, but I really am not following the parallel you're trying to draw.

It was the Democratic Party that instigated the removal of GOD from the National Public Education Forum when Kennedy was President. It is a Democrat who is minister at that National Public "Shrine". Does that make it any easier to follow?

Thank God they did.

The Democratic Party should stay out of the education business and return it to the community level where the citizens could decide if the Bible is a worthy textbook or not. We don't need governmental interference nor their opinions.

That is you, and keep religion out of politics.

Don't tell me what is religious and I wont tell you what is political.

Go to parochial school. Don't bring religion into politics.

 

[Agit8r]

People who side with faith over evidence in their moral philosophy are unfortunately more likely to beleive political myths over facts as well. And to a proportionate degree, at that.

The recent capitol treason plot being an excellent example.

 

[Ringtone]

That is you, and keep religion out of politics.

Get your religion off me, lefty.

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

The extremist religious nutters do tend to tend to use terms and slogans they don't understand. It is indeed a complicated issue, which is why simplistic, absolutist views such as presented by you religious extremists are woefully inadequate.

The fact that there cannot be concensus does not dictate that we mindlessly leap to an absolutist proscription. As with most contested matters of ajudication, we are dealing with conflicting recognized rights: a woman to control her womb, a fetus to develop into an individual. Rowe vs Wade has deliniated the specifics of such a compromise, recognizing as a superior matter of privacy the right of a woman to control a pregnancy before that zygote/embryo/fetus has become a viable entity, and granting that fetus a protected status once its development has reached a definitive stage. There is always a nebulous area in between that can be contested, but to legislate either one extremist position or the other is not an equitable approach.

The extremist religious nutters such as you on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Rowe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

As with so many issues that are contentious and difficult, it's fortunate that we have rule of law as opposed to rule of religious zealot to achieve reasonable compromises

Hollie

 

[Hollie]

That is you, and keep religion out of politics.

Get your religion off me, lefty.

Its a civil right, your confusion is duly noted. No one does infanticide, its illegal in all 50 states.

It's infanticide and your failure to understand that under natural and divine law it's not a legitimate right is duly noted, sociopath.

The extremist religious nutters do tend to tend to use terms and slogans they don't understand. It is indeed a complicated issue, which is why simplistic, absolutist views such as presented by you religious extremists are woefully inadequate.

The fact that there cannot be concensus does not dictate that we mindlessly leap to an absolutist proscription. As with most contested matters of ajudication, we are dealing with conflicting recognized rights: a woman to control her womb, a fetus to develop into an individual. Rowe vs Wade has deliniated the specifics of such a compromise, recognizing as a superior matter of privacy the right of a woman to control a pregnancy before that zygote/embryo/fetus has become a viable entity, and granting that fetus a protected status once its development has reached a definitive stage. There is always a nebulous area in between that can be contested, but to legislate either one extremist position or the other is not an equitable approach.

The extremist religious nutters such as you on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Rowe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

As with so many issues that are contentious and difficult, it's fortunate that we have rule of law as opposed to rule of religious zealot to achieve reasonable compromises

View attachment 443892

Eh. More spam from the religiously damaged.