| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2012 04:48:07 PM · #576 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I know he's doing it on purpose to get attention and to purposely be a giant a-hole... but seriously Rush needs to fall off the face of the Earth. It drives me mad that nut jobs like this guy get their own show and so much attention. I know I'm feeding the troll here but it just goes to show how little we seem to care about content and how inflated entertainment value has become. Unless the people that listen to him actually think he has content...
Does anyone take him seriously and actually like this guy?
Rush insulting a woman for speaking out.
Go about 5 minutes in. |
//leftaction.com/action/boycott-rush
Multiple advertisers are now pulling their ads. |
my x husband believes every word that comes out of his mouth, he also used to beat me at least twice a week. now you know the type of audience he has.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 04:51:25 PM · #577 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Forget religion for a second; what about MORALITY? Should I be imposing my *belief* that it's wrong for adults to have sex with children on you? Or more importantly, on your children?
Look, you guys are twisting this around to make it ABOUT religion because the people who are advocating a point of view you don't care for, in this thread, happen to BE religious. That's not right.
I agree 100% that in no way should a believer in Christ, or in Allah, or in whom/whatever, be allowed to force these beliefs upon his neighbors. But religions have moral codes, we've been over this before. And the codes are not ipso facto invalidated just because they come from a religion. If they WERE, then murder would be legal, eh? |
I fully agree with you my friend with the issue of morality and would hasten to point out that morality is not the exclusive domain of churches (whatever domination they might be) |
Yes, that's my POINT, danggit... Except it goes both ways: those who would invalidate a moral choice because it is church-driven are in effect saying that morality is the exclusive domain of the secular world. It's nonsense.
I'm NOT using this as an argument in favor of allowing the Catholic Church to opt out of paying for birth control, BTW. No, I'm just tired of seeing people piling on as if it's somehow obvious (let alone rational) that if the Church advocates for something it is wrong. That's what it's starting to sound like in here. That's NOT why it's wrong; it's wrong because it's wrong, and if a church wrong-headedly pushes it that's another issue.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 05:52:47 PM · #578 |
I guess it slipped past Shannon and Ray what I meant.
Ray's statement:
"I am of the view that I earnestly believe that what you believe in should in no way affect the whole of society."
The belief that all beliefs should not affect society is, in itself, a belief and thus, if internally consistent, should not affect society. It is a self-defeating statement.
Jeb, of course, maybe said what Ray really meant by saying "On no level should religion affect members of a free society who do not share the same religious beliefs." This is a more logically consistent statement, but is quite discriminatory. "Beliefs may affect society except religious ones." If I've learned one thing on Rant it's you guys don't like discrimination. So you can keep the internal consistency of the argument only if you take on the mantle of hypocrisy.
And I'll comment on Nullix's statement and say I have no knowledge that birth control pills are a "class one carcinogen".
Message edited by author 2012-03-03 17:54:44. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 06:14:45 PM · #579 |
| I guess it slipped past Jason what Ray actually wrote, since he never said ALL beliefs and the post was clearly within the context of religion. As noted in these threads so many times that it shouldn't have to be repeated, our society's rules are set constitutionally, with natural rights and personal liberty of paramount importance. Your beliefs, whether derived from religion, aliens or little voices in your head, only apply to you, and freeing others from your discrimination against them (whether "your" is you personally or a religious group, white supremacists, fanatical vegetarians., etc.) is NOT discrimination against you or the group, but the simple right of others to live as they see fit. Innumerable laws and SCOTUS rulings bear this out. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 08:22:28 PM · #580 |
Naw. Completely disagree. SCOTUS does not bear this out no matter how loud you type. If this were the case I don't think the republican candidates would be quick to let their constituency know their faith informs their positions. It would seem like bad form to campaign on a clear constitutional violation. But maybe you think the republicans are just that dumb, except Obama talks about his faith in the same manner at times.
Anyway, you are entitled to your view of the constitution. I will be quite thankful it amounts to nothing other than a headache for me on Rant. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 09:02:05 PM · #581 |
No no no no. Lovely philosophical debate you are having here guys but it's besides the point. Have we forgotten that most Catholics DO use some form of birth control and can we therefor conclude that they DON'T think it's immoral?
If we bring that fact back we can remember for the most part it's not the Catholic people that are trying to fight for their morality, but the Catholic institutions that have not caught up to the will of the people, even their own.
What tickles me though, is that if they don't pay for BC through insurance, they are almost paying for it even more directly by making their employees pay out of pocket. They are in effect taking out a middle man (insurance) and saying pay for it yourself (with our money)!
So either way their "morality" is kinda screwed because they aren't going to STOP their employees from buying it... unless. Oh wait. Some people can't afford it. Ah ha... Sneaky.
Message edited by author 2012-03-03 21:06:13. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 09:05:24 PM · #582 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
my x husband believes every word that comes out of his mouth, he also used to beat me at least twice a week. now you know the type of audience he has. |
I'm sorry to hear that and glad you are out of that situation. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 10:36:40 PM · #583 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
maybe you think the republicans are just that dumb, except Obama talks about his faith in the same manner at times. |
Although I do think Republicans are that dumb (Christine O'Donnell and Rick Santorum on the separation of church and state, Tea Party on co-opting the founding fathers as as "Christian" nation, Herman Cain referencing the Declaration of Independence while lecturing people on the need to read the Constitution, yadayadyada...), every candidate must at least feign devout Christian faith or risk alienating people like you. Ironically, any test of faith *IS* against the constitution.
Disagree all you want, but literally EVERY major social change has depended on the Supreme Court ruling that the rights of people to live as they see fit overrides the beliefs of individuals to discriminate against them. Abolishing slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, interfaith marriage, etc. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 01:19:24 AM · #584 |
Conscientious objection? Supreme court ruling 1971. I dunno, maybe you'll say it isn't major, but it bucks your trend. I could come up with others, but it doesn't matter. I think you are just seeing the world through your particular lens. I talk to lots of people and I'll say your particular view is not quite fringe, but it's getting there. I just don't find many people in the real world that are as anti-religion as you and a few others here on DPC. And this is coming from Eugene, one of the most liberal, free thinking cities in the country.
Edit: of course we have a recent ruling by the SCOTUS that says there is a "ministerial exception" to discriminatory labor laws. A unanimous ruling, btw.
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 01:21:47. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:59:15 AM · #585 |
Tsk, tsk, your desperation is showing. Conscientious objection is neither a matter of discrimination nor religion. One can claim such status on the grounds of freedom of thought or, surprise... conscience. Ministerial exception applies within the church only, where people can also exclude blacks, exclude women from positions of power, exclude gays, exclude other beliefs, ignore laws on handicap access, deny healthcare to their immediate employees and generally act like Neanderthals in keeping with their awesome moral code (two words: "ritual cannibalism"). Try any of that outside the church, and the rights of people to live as they see fit will trump your petty beliefs every time.
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 12:03:36. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 04:06:32 PM · #586 |
| I'll tell you what. Let's skip the twenty posts back and forth and get to the end where we still disagree with each other! :D |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 05:57:03 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
The only reason you feel comfortable with religion influencing policy to the extent that it does is because you happen to be an adherent to a majority faith, and you can't imagine your faith ever being in the minority in the U.S. If it were the other way around and you were in the minority, you'd be singing a different tune. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 08:05:25 PM · #588 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
Well, no. That's where you're wrong. You COULD divorce it quite easily. You choose not to. Massive difference. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:42:42 PM · #589 |
| Easy like taking wet out of water, right? You can't avoid who you are and in this case why would I ever want to? |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:47:34 PM · #590 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Easy like taking wet out of water, right? You can't avoid who you are and in this case why would I ever want to? |
I think what they're saying is, IF you were a politician and IF you were Catholic (for example) you might reasonably be expected not to try to get your church doctrine on contraception enacted into law. You might reasonably be expected to realize that there's more than one prevailing attitude on this, and that it would just be WRONG to use your position of political power to advocate for doctrinal causes.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:52:58 PM · #591 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
If religious people can't set aside their personal beliefs and follow the rules at hand then in effect you're saying they are incapable of being judges, politicians, diplomats, arbiters, etc except in a theocracy. Maybe what you meant to say is this is just your personal limitation? |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:56:49 PM · #592 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If religious people can't set aside their personal beliefs and follow the rules at hand then in effect you're saying they are incapable of being judges, politicians, diplomats, arbiters, etc except in a theocracy. Maybe what you meant to say is this is just your personal limitation? |
You forgot doctor. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:11:15 PM · #593 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Easy like taking wet out of water, right? You can't avoid who you are and in this case why would I ever want to? |
Actually a better analogy would be to compare it to a synthetic element. Like religion, a synthetic element is man-made and is created by bombarding or ripping apart the natural state of something that already exist in order to create something new that is often unstable and wouldn't have existed otherwise. Hence why it should remain quarantined.
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 23:13:07. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:31:52 PM · #594 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Easy like taking wet out of water, right? You can't avoid who you are and in this case why would I ever want to? |
Actually a better analogy would be to compare it to a synthetic element. Like religion, a synthetic element is man-made and is created by bombarding or ripping apart the natural state of something that already exist in order to create something new that is often unstable and wouldn't have existed otherwise. Hence why it should remain quarantined. |
You can't be serious? As long as there has been mankind, there has been religion. The urge towards religion has been one of the constants in the long, history of humanity. It is actually easier to argue that the "natural to state of things" is to believe in God, or gods, than it is to argue your position above. And I don't mean by that to be saying it's easy to argue that God EXISTS (because it isn't), but just that man's belief in God has been with us for a long, long time.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:41:44 PM · #595 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Easy like taking wet out of water, right? You can't avoid who you are and in this case why would I ever want to? |
Actually a better analogy would be to compare it to a synthetic element. Like religion, a synthetic element is man-made and is created by bombarding or ripping apart the natural state of something that already exist in order to create something new that is often unstable and wouldn't have existed otherwise. Hence why it should remain quarantined. |
You can't be serious? As long as there has been mankind, there has been religion. The urge towards religion has been one of the constants in the long, history of humanity. It is actually easier to argue that the "natural to state of things" is to believe in God, or gods, than it is to argue your position above. And I don't mean by that to be saying it's easy to argue that God EXISTS (because it isn't), but just that man's belief in God has been with us for a long, long time.
R. |
Just becaus the process is common doesn't mean it's natural. We are all born atheists. That is the natural state. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:48:01 PM · #596 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
The only reason you feel comfortable with religion influencing policy to the extent that it does is because you happen to be an adherent to a majority faith, and you can't imagine your faith ever being in the minority in the U.S. If it were the other way around and you were in the minority, you'd be singing a different tune. |
I think this is a valid point and it raises an interesting situation: the current frontrunner for the Republicans is a Mormon, who believes in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Are you comfortable with the probability that his decisions will be influenced by a book not normally associated with main-line Christianity? How would you feel if the book of his faith was the Torah? This isn't being asked of just Jason, by the way.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:52:38 PM · #597 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I think this is a valid point and it raises an interesting situation: the current frontrunner for the Republicans is a Mormon, who believes in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Are you comfortable with the probability that his decisions will be influenced by a book not normally associated with main-line Christianity? How would you feel if the book of his faith was the Torah? This isn't being asked of just Jason, by the way. |
We had a Catholic president, Kennedy, and people obsessed over what that might mean. The Republicans tried to get Americans to believe that Kennedy would do the Pope's bidding. None of that, of course, ever happened. Nor would it if Romney's elected. The ONLY religious group I'M worried about is the radical, fundamentalist, right-wing-nut Christians.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2012 11:53:18 PM · #598 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As long as there has been mankind, there has been religion. The urge towards religion has been one of the constants in the long, history of humanity. |
Likewise, then, the urge towards believing in aliens, writing works of fiction, and inventing tools... all of which remain artificial. Humans are predisposed to see patterns even when there are none, to seek explanations for the unknown and to find order in chaos, but the creations we fabricate to reach those goals are themselves no more natural than the keyboard you're typing on. Nobody comes by knowledge of any modern flavor of religion naturally. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 12:03:44 AM · #599 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The ONLY religious group I'M worried about is the radical, fundamentalist, right-wing-nut Christians. |
That's probably true for most of the country, yet the Republican candidates have been falling over themselves trying to appeal to that very group.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 00:03:58. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 12:12:46 AM · #600 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The ONLY religious group I'M worried about is the radical, fundamentalist, right-wing-nut Christians. |
That's probably true for most of the country, yet the Republican candidates have been falling over themselves trying to appeal to that very group. |
Yeah, go figure. Something weird is going on here... Must be the End Times... :-)
R.
|
|
