| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2012 06:27:47 PM · #751 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... We, of course, would say that we (as the Eugene Mission) feel called by God to serve the poor and homeless and that policies such as changing zoning allowances for our Mission (currently capped at 400 beds of which we are at our limit and a cap of 600 beds would be much more accomodating) would further our calling and help serve the community.
Would you say this is reasonable discussion in a setting of public discourse of policy? Any change in zoning would, of course, need to go through typical local legislative processes, but you get the point. We are approaching the problem from an expressedly religious viewpoint and are speaking out about it in a public forum. Do you favor the stifling of such talk? |
I am certainly not against any interactions that would advance an worthy cause but question the need to interject religion into it. Surely the entity engaged in the decision making process can render a decision based solely on the validity of the proposal.
Shall I assume that the incorporation of religion from your perspective is viewed as a factor that might curry favours, be viewed in a better light, speed up the process and/or expedite the housing and care of the downtrodden? Is there a value added factor to the religious interjection you propose?
One would think that logistical arguments coupled with a realization that the proposal would benefit all of society should suffice to sway the decision making process in your favour.
However, you know your audience a lot better than I do and if this is something that will benefit society without the imposition of restrictions based solely on a religious basis, then let your conscience be your guide.
I would hasten to point out however, that a well planned, effective, efficient and pragmatic approach to the situation at hand would in all probability accomplish the same results.
I have no problems with religious discourse, as long as it does not obtain "Carte Blanche" in the decision making process, nor impinges on the rights of others.
I do hope that this clarifies my views a bit.
Ray |
Well, it does somewhat. I wasn't as interested in the practical or pragmatic question of "is it effective" but rather if this is part of what you feel should be removed. We would be advocating for a position (further aid to the homeless in general, a change in zoning ordinances in specific) from a religioius point of view. So if someone asked "why" should we do such and such, our answer would unequivocally be "because we are called by God to do so" even though there are obvious secular interests that overlap. I do not know the religious ideologies of the board members, but what if they shared the interest and voted for it because of their shared belief (it doesn't even have to be exclusively because of their belief. Again, there are other reasons to serve the homeless, but I can easily envision someone thinking "I DO think we are all called by God to serve the homeless. Resolution passed."
Anyway, thanks for the reply. It does soften the edges of your viewpoint and I think that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 06:32:27 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
From the Guttmacher Institute: STATES ENACT RECORD NUMBER OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN FIRST HALF OF 2011
"In the first six months of 2011, states enacted 162 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Fully 49% of these new laws seek to restrict access to abortion services, a sharp increase from 2010, when 26% of new laws restricted abortion. The 80 abortion restrictions enacted this year are more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010. All of these new provisions were enacted in just 19 states." |
While giving you credit for coming up with a fair number of bills here, I will point out that the 162 are not characterized. 80 of them are about abortion, but the other 82 are not mentioned and could be bills that liberalize reproductive rights. The article just doesn't say.
Personally though, if we're going to call it a war (as per the previous conversation), I'd call it a "war on abortion" instead of a "war on women". I don't think the two are synonymous at all.
I will also add that the author has a clear bias and sometimes it is a disservice to the reader. For example, when speaking about gestational bans past 20 weeks the author writes "These laws appear to conflict with Supreme Court rulings barring states from placing an undue burden on women seeking an abortion prior to viability, a point that occurs well past 20 weeks." I have firsthand knowledge that the point of viability is currently at about 23 weeks and occasionally dips into 22 weeks. That is only about 10% past the 20 week cutoff and I would take issue with the phrase "well past 20 weeks" without claifying. In 1973 during Roe v. Wade it was at about 28 weeks.
Message edited by author 2012-03-08 18:42:13. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:12:58 PM · #753 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if someone asked "why" should we do such and such, our answer would unequivocally be "because we are called by God to do so" even though there are obvious secular interests that overlap. |
Does God offer some rationale for requiring these activities, or do you plan to just follow orders? If there's a rationale, then it should be entirely possible for humans to arrive at the same conclusion by reason alone.
Suppose God had had a somewhat different plan, do you think Abraham would have gone on to found two major religions after slaughtering Isaac, or been committed as some schizophrenic who'd gone over the edge ...?
Why do we now consider all the people who "hear God" insane and imprison or "treat" them -- what test can you apply to prove they are not just as divinely-inspired as any of the other prophets?
|
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:16:14 PM · #754 |
| The questions are all tangential Paul. Doesn't matter to me. Can I or can't I use the line of thought in this specific political discourse? |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:29:14 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I didn't "teach" them atheist. I just didn't expose them to religion. |
GASP!!
You mean......you let them make up their own minds, and search for themselves what they want to believe?
That's CRAZY stuff!!! LOL!!! |
Same. My mom had some unique amalgamation of religious and new age beliefs that I was exposed to and soon rejected and my dad never said a word about religion until I expressed what I felt. I was actually quite scared to tell him I was atheist and within a few minutes of talking realized he was too and I had never even known. Years later when I came to be interested in Buddhism, I found the same thing. He too had read and practiced and I had no idea. |
God help me, I told myself I wouldn't post here again.
I don't understand why people think it's so wrong to teach your children what you believe? That, as I see it, is a major function of being a parent. Here is my own real life example. I am a Jehovah's Witness, my ex-wife a Mormon (I know, talk about an odd couple right? Probably a mistake from the beginning) at any rate, my daughter appears to have no interest in JW's and wants to be Mormon. My son, seems to lean toward JW but he's pretty quiet on those things. Here, verbatim, is the conversation I have had with both. "I will always strive to teach you what I believe because I feel it is a big part of my job as a parent. I would not be a good father if I have what I feel is a life-saving message and not share it with you. However, you need to make up your own mind. If you want to be JW, Mormon or anything else, make sure you're doing it because it's what you feel is true, not to make me or your mom happy."
I can't tell from your post how you feel about it, but in my opinion, if you spent your whole life not knowing something so important and intimate to your father as his beliefs on a creator/religion/spirituality etc that is not a good thing, quite sad actually. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:30:29 PM · #756 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The questions are all tangential Paul. Doesn't matter to me. Can I or can't I use the line of thought in this specific political discourse? |
Following orders is hardly a line of thought, but I suppose its a good thing your master tells you to help your fellow man because it sounds like you wouldn't otherwise. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:32:30 PM · #757 |
The question is not whether you can use "religious reasoning" to advance a position, but whether under our system of democratic civil law a religious rational trumps other lines of reasoning, particularly when the religious dogma restricts the activities of non-adherents. The Eighth Amendment trumps Leviticus, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:34:06 PM · #758 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The question is not whether you can use "religious reasoning" to advance a position, but whether under our system of democratic civil law a religious rational trumps other lines of reasoning, particularly when the religious dogma restricts the activities of non-adherents. The Eighth Amendment trumps Leviticus, not the other way around. |
What?!? Who's asking THAT question? I have never, ever argued that religious rational trumps other lines of reasoning in terms of political discourse.
Message edited by author 2012-03-08 19:35:59. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:34:42 PM · #759 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The questions are all tangential Paul. Doesn't matter to me. Can I or can't I use the line of thought in this specific political discourse? |
Following orders is hardly a line of thought, but I suppose its a good thing your master tells you to help your fellow man because it sounds like you wouldn't otherwise. |
That didn't really answer the question did it? ;) |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:41:10 PM · #760 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyone is entitled to run for office precisely because their beliefs are irrelevant to civil service, and any opinions on policy would have to be made on the grounds of reason and evidence for the benefit of all rather than superstitious dogma. Like or not, down is in fact down. |
Actually at the time that wasn't true. In Virginia certain sects, Catholics for example, were barred from running for public office. The Statute is clearly a Freedom OF religion not a Freedom FROM religion.. |
You're a poor student of history. Catholics were not barred from public office in Virginia after Jefferson's principles were enacted in 1786, and the Supreme Court later unanimously ruled that religious tests for office were unconstitutional in any state after the passage of the 14th amendment. Religious beliefs are simply disregarded while running for office, and that does not change once elected so you're no closer to establishing the validity of such opinions in government. As JFK so eloquently explained:
"I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:42:48 PM · #761 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I didn't "teach" them atheist. I just didn't expose them to religion. |
GASP!!
You mean......you let them make up their own minds, and search for themselves what they want to believe?
That's CRAZY stuff!!! LOL!!! |
Same. My mom had some unique amalgamation of religious and new age beliefs that I was exposed to and soon rejected and my dad never said a word about religion until I expressed what I felt. I was actually quite scared to tell him I was atheist and within a few minutes of talking realized he was too and I had never even known. Years later when I came to be interested in Buddhism, I found the same thing. He too had read and practiced and I had no idea. |
God help me, I told myself I wouldn't post here again.
I don't understand why people think it's so wrong to teach your children what you believe? That, as I see it, is a major function of being a parent. Here is my own real life example. I am a Jehovah's Witness, my ex-wife a Mormon (I know, talk about an odd couple right? Probably a mistake from the beginning) at any rate, my daughter appears to have no interest in JW's and wants to be Mormon. My son, seems to lean toward JW but he's pretty quiet on those things. Here, verbatim, is the conversation I have had with both. "I will always strive to teach you what I believe because I feel it is a big part of my job as a parent. I would not be a good father if I have what I feel is a life-saving message and not share it with you. However, you need to make up your own mind. If you want to be JW, Mormon or anything else, make sure you're doing it because it's what you feel is true, not to make me or your mom happy."
I can't tell from your post how you feel about it, but in my opinion, if you spent your whole life not knowing something so important and intimate to your father as his beliefs on a creator/religion/spirituality etc that is not a good thing, quite sad actually. |
That's pretty insulting, at the very least presumptuous. What I remember of my father from childhood is him taking me on bike rides, dancing with me in the rain, hanging up a hammock for me to read in and bringing me smoothies, letting me make all the funny movies I wanted with his video camera, etc. He treated me well, raised me well, and trusted me to come to my own conclusions. He treated me as my own human being with my own opinions. Without any intervention, I have come to very similar beliefs as him on my own because it's what feels right to me. He showed me those virtues through his actions, not through his words. There is nothing sad about that.
I don't have a problem with religious folks talking to their kids about religion and then letting them make up their own minds. But to be clear, even saying "choose what you want" is a kind of pressure that need not be there. Because when religion is even brought up, and they know your beliefs, whether you intend to or not there is a sort of pressure there to go with or against your beliefs. To me it's the same as going "you can be a doctor or a lawyer... or you know, whatever you want." There is already an underlying attempt to sway the options in your own favor by presenting limited choices.
And then you have the people that don't want their kids to choose at all. Who try to mandate exactly what they believe. I think that's a disservice to all. Why would anyone want a child to be a blind follower except to make their own life easier? In this I mean, to not have to deal with the messy question all kids instinctively ask:
Why? |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 07:44:26 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyone is entitled to run for office precisely because their beliefs are irrelevant to civil service, and any opinions on policy would have to be made on the grounds of reason and evidence for the benefit of all rather than superstitious dogma. Like or not, down is in fact down. |
Actually at the time that wasn't true. In Virginia certain sects, Catholics for example, were barred from running for public office. The Statute is clearly a Freedom OF religion not a Freedom FROM religion.. |
You're a poor student of history. Catholics were not barred from public office in Virginia after Jefferson's principles were enacted in 1786,... |
?!? That's exactly what I said. At the time he wrote the Statute Catholics were barred. After it was enacted, they could run. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 08:27:12 PM · #763 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
That's pretty insulting, at the very least presumptuous. What I remember of my father from childhood is him taking me on bike rides, dancing with me in the rain, hanging up a hammock for me to read in and bringing me smoothies, letting me make all the funny movies I wanted with his video camera, etc. He treated me well, raised me well, and trusted me to come to my own conclusions. He treated me as my own human being with my own opinions. Without any intervention, I have come to very similar beliefs as him on my own because it's what feels right to me. He showed me those virtues through his actions, not through his words. There is nothing sad about that.
I don't have a problem with religious folks talking to their kids about religion and then letting them make up their own minds. But to be clear, even saying "choose what you want" is a kind of pressure that need not be there. Because when religion is even brought up, and they know your beliefs, whether you intend to or not there is a sort of pressure there to go with or against your beliefs. To me it's the same as going "you can be a doctor or a lawyer... or you know, whatever you want." There is already an underlying attempt to sway the options in your own favor by presenting limited choices.
And then you have the people that don't want their kids to choose at all. Who try to mandate exactly what they believe. I think that's a disservice to all. Why would anyone want a child to be a blind follower except to make their own life easier? In this I mean, to not have to deal with the messy question all kids instinctively ask:
Why? |
Well, I apologize, I was trying very hard to stay away from the tone of our earlier exchange. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you had a bad relationship with your father. It's just that all my kids know that they can talk to me about anything. I drive 120 miles one way a few times a month when I get them and we have had some of the best conversations during those drives. Heck, there has even been times when talking to my step-daughter that she has asked her mom to leave the rooom and just talk to me.
As for kids asking "why" I have no problem answering that question. And I don't feel my two have gotten alot of pressure from me, but again, I feel I would be negiligent were I not to teach them what I believe.
I do agree there is no point in being a blind follower, in fact, there is a scripture that says "make the truth your own". In other words, research and prove it to yourself. It may sound odd, but, I don't consider myself a spiritual person by nature. I had many years of living crazy but what JW's teach from the bible just made too much sense to me to ignore it. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 08:37:42 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Catholics were not barred from public office in Virginia after Jefferson's principles were enacted in 1786,... |
?!? That's exactly what I said. At the time he wrote the Statute Catholics were barred. After it was enacted, they could run. |
Great... so before Jefferson religious beliefs mattered in public office, after Jefferson religious beliefs were disregarded in public office. This is after. I'm glad we're finally on the same page! :-) |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 09:23:18 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally though, if we're going to call it a war (as per the previous conversation), I'd call it a "war on abortion" instead of a "war on women". I don't think the two are synonymous at all. |
I think most women would disagree with your assessment. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 10:13:28 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Catholics were not barred from public office in Virginia after Jefferson's principles were enacted in 1786,... |
?!? That's exactly what I said. At the time he wrote the Statute Catholics were barred. After it was enacted, they could run. |
Great... so before Jefferson religious beliefs mattered in public office, after Jefferson religious beliefs were disregarded in public office. This is after. I'm glad we're finally on the same page! :-) |
Only if the page you are on is that before only one religious belief mattered and after all of them mattered... :P
I'm reminded of my quote where we skip the next twenty posts and get to the end where we still disagree...
Message edited by author 2012-03-08 22:19:56. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 10:24:10 PM · #767 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=scalvert]Catholics were not barred from public office in Virginia after Jefferson's principles were enacted in 1786,... |
?!? That's exactly what I said. At the time he wrote the Statute Catholics were barred. After it was enacted, they could run. |
Great... so before Jefferson religious beliefs mattered in public office, after Jefferson religious beliefs were disregarded in public office. This is after. I'm glad we're finally on the same page! :-) |
Only if the page you are on is that before only one religious belief mattered and after all of them mattered... :P
I'm reminded of my quote where we skip the next twenty posts and get to the end where we still disagree... [/quote
I think it should be "Only if the page you are on is that before only one religious belief mattered and after None of them mattered... :P" :-) |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 10:26:55 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally though, if we're going to call it a war (as per the previous conversation), I'd call it a "war on abortion" instead of a "war on women". I don't think the two are synonymous at all. |
I think most women would disagree with your assessment. |
Says I have to log in. But m sure SOME women disagree, but that's ok. We're all entitled to our opinions. Frankly some of those laws you mentioned seem quite reasonable. A 72 hour waiting period before a life and death decision? That seems very reasonable. Banning abortions after 20 weeks? I have personally attended the delivery of a 21 week old baby and was the physician that had to determine if it was vible or not and I would say if I had to witness an abortion at that age I would have serious psychological issues. At that age they are nothing less than little hand sized babies. To witness one ripped up and destroyed? I shudder. More power to those bans. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 10:37:25 PM · #769 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Well, I apologize, I was trying very hard to stay away from the tone of our earlier exchange. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you had a bad relationship with your father. It's just that all my kids know that they can talk to me about anything. I drive 120 miles one way a few times a month when I get them and we have had some of the best conversations during those drives. Heck, there has even been times when talking to my step-daughter that she has asked her mom to leave the rooom and just talk to me.
As for kids asking "why" I have no problem answering that question. And I don't feel my two have gotten alot of pressure from me, but again, I feel I would be negiligent were I not to teach them what I believe.
I do agree there is no point in being a blind follower, in fact, there is a scripture that says "make the truth your own". In other words, research and prove it to yourself. It may sound odd, but, I don't consider myself a spiritual person by nature. I had many years of living crazy but what JW's teach from the bible just made too much sense to me to ignore it. |
Hmm. I think negligent is a bit strong, after all, from what you've said here it sounds like you came to your faith without your parents.
Is that a common thread? Don't mean to generalize but I've met a few people who "lived crazy" and then reformed with religion. To me it seems like a need for structure, and religion is the most obvious or in your face way. JW come door to door. It's right there hand delivered.
As for me, I've always been pretty reserved and if anything in my life has been "crazy" (by other people's standards I'm sure there are things, but not really by my own), they've been done with MORE maturation and age, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 10:48:33 PM · #770 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally though, if we're going to call it a war (as per the previous conversation), I'd call it a "war on abortion" instead of a "war on women". I don't think the two are synonymous at all. |
I think most women would disagree with your assessment. |
Says I have to log in. But m sure SOME women disagree, but that's ok. We're all entitled to our opinions. Frankly some of those laws you mentioned seem quite reasonable. A 72 hour waiting period before a life and death decision? That seems very reasonable. Banning abortions after 20 weeks? I have personally attended the delivery of a 21 week old baby and was the physician that had to determine if it was vible or not and I would say if I had to witness an abortion at that age I would have serious psychological issues. At that age they are nothing less than little hand sized babies. To witness one ripped up and destroyed? I shudder. More power to those bans. |
What about the link I posted about the single moms bill being sought in Wisconsin? What about birth control (the very thing that would prevent abortions)? What about sex-ed and the family planning being defunded? Discussion of women not being in the front lines of combat (you know, cus they are delicate and what-not)?
A list of 10 more
Another article
"I said on the show that there certainly is a perception that conservatives are conducting a “war on women.” After these messages and calls, I am convinced. " |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 11:09:55 PM · #771 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Well, I apologize, I was trying very hard to stay away from the tone of our earlier exchange. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you had a bad relationship with your father. It's just that all my kids know that they can talk to me about anything. I drive 120 miles one way a few times a month when I get them and we have had some of the best conversations during those drives. Heck, there has even been times when talking to my step-daughter that she has asked her mom to leave the rooom and just talk to me.
As for kids asking "why" I have no problem answering that question. And I don't feel my two have gotten alot of pressure from me, but again, I feel I would be negiligent were I not to teach them what I believe.
I do agree there is no point in being a blind follower, in fact, there is a scripture that says "make the truth your own". In other words, research and prove it to yourself. It may sound odd, but, I don't consider myself a spiritual person by nature. I had many years of living crazy but what JW's teach from the bible just made too much sense to me to ignore it. |
Hmm. I think negligent is a bit strong, after all, from what you've said here it sounds like you came to your faith without your parents.
Is that a common thread? Don't mean to generalize but I've met a few people who "lived crazy" and then reformed with religion. To me it seems like a need for structure, and religion is the most obvious or in your face way. JW come door to door. It's right there hand delivered.
As for me, I've always been pretty reserved and if anything in my life has been "crazy" (by other people's standards I'm sure there are things, but not really by my own), they've been done with MORE maturation and age, not the other way around. |
actually I was raised JW and left for quite a while. I didn't "find god" in the sense that alot of former drug users did. It was more of looking back and seeing it's value after some hard knocks.
Message edited by author 2012-03-08 23:10:55. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 11:10:56 PM · #772 |
Hmmm... yea I just don't get it. I couldn't force myself to be religious if I wanted to. It's just makes no sense to me. I tried to get it, for a long time. I had some pretty religious friends in middle school when I first "came out" as atheist that were all about trying to "save" me (most by kind, though unintentionally insulting words, but one by mean ones) and so I tried to make it work a bit for a while just to fit in but it just didn't. Every time I went to church and really tried to listen, my resolve that I couldn't be a believer was strengthened.
Buddhism makes sense to me. It's logical. It has reasoning behind it that has proven to be scientifically true in several fields, the one of interest to me being neurology. Proper meditation= a healthier brain, increased compassion, concentration, and patience. It doesn't get much more simple than that.
When you are directed by compassion, empathy, and knowledge there is no need for heaven and hell. You create your own with your deeds and the reaction to them. Nothing annoys me more in religious debates than those that think without religion the world would run wildly full of immoral people with no reason to not hurt and steal from each other. It's simply not true.
Message edited by author 2012-03-08 23:50:43. |
|
|
|
03/08/2012 11:27:05 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The questions are all tangential Paul. Doesn't matter to me. Can I or can't I use the line of thought in this specific political discourse? |
Perhaps you might want to test the waters before jumping in with both feet. You might want to get a feel for the audience and the mindset of the decision makers before you play what you seemingly consider your trump card.
It could very well be that some might consider this tactic offensive and it could have just the opposite impact you hope for and prove detrimental to your endeavours.
I have no wish to offend you Doc, but I have dealt with such scenarios and participated in many round table discussions where the community earnestly strove to assist those in need... and never was the mention of God at the forefront of the discussions.
I am not suggesting that you ought not go down this path, but merely bringing to your attention that compassion for those less fortunate is not the exclusive domain of those of faith... and that some of the lay people could possibly view this as an affront.
The best of luck to you in this very worthy cause.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 12:43:07 AM · #774 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally though, if we're going to call it a war (as per the previous conversation), I'd call it a "war on abortion" instead of a "war on women". I don't think the two are synonymous at all. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
What about the link I posted about the single moms bill being sought in Wisconsin? What about birth control (the very thing that would prevent abortions)? What about sex-ed and the family planning being defunded? Discussion of women not being in the front lines of combat (you know, cus they are delicate and what-not)?
A list of 10 more
Another article
"I said on the show that there certainly is a perception that conservatives are conducting a “war on women.” After these messages and calls, I am convinced." |
Yes, what about all the non-abortion pieces of legislation? I'm afraid it doesn't matter how much information we provide here, for those who choose to remain ignorant and blind. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 12:48:50 AM · #775 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I think it should be "Only if the page you are on is that before only one religious belief mattered and after None of them mattered... :P" :-) |
Correctamundo. Not one religion of the world would ever accept the assertions of another as valid when setting policy for all. If all religious opinions mattered in this setting, then respected members of every major denomination would have advisory roles in government, with each declaring what God wants as the basis for bills on every issue. Such a scenario was anathema to the architects of our Constitution, which is expressly why they forbade the Church from meddling in the affairs of government just as the government could not meddle in the affairs of the church. When you run for office, there is no test of religion because your sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution, not the assumed wishes of any particular god, and the exclusion of faith as a qualification for office was the ONLY mention of religion in the Constitution.
Message edited by author 2012-03-09 00:49:30. |
|
