Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 7:15:31 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah
I guess the church missed that day in civics class.



Churches aren't used to getting lessons on civics, GP. They're used to giving lessons on civics.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to GrandPoobah)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:01:10 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

The problem, assuming there really is one, is that the churches are proposing doing exactly the same thing.

The President says everyone should have access to birth control, and proposed that employer provided health insurance should include that, even if it costs more. The "church" responded by saying..."since we don't believe in it, you're sticking the State into religion, which is against the Constitution.

The churches, on the other hand, are telling their employees (and students) that they cannot have birth control because the church doesn't believe in it, even if the employee or student does. So...the church is attempting to mandate religious beliefs to an employee or student, something else the Constitution specifically says you can't do.
So...if it's "wrong" for the State (President) to mandate beliefs, it's equally wrong for the church to mandate beliefs. Whoops. I guess the church missed that day in civics class.


I'm curious: exactly where does the constitution say that churches can't tell their employees or students how to behave?

Both employees and students are there, voluntarily (in the case of parochial schools). If you don't like the rules/job benefits where you work, go and find a different job.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 2/16/2012 10:02:39 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to GrandPoobah)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:03:37 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

The problem, assuming there really is one, is that the churches are proposing doing exactly the same thing.

The President says everyone should have access to birth control, and proposed that employer provided health insurance should include that, even if it costs more. The "church" responded by saying..."since we don't believe in it, you're sticking the State into religion, which is against the Constitution.

The churches, on the other hand, are telling their employees (and students) that they cannot have birth control because the church doesn't believe in it, even if the employee or student does. So...the church is attempting to mandate religious beliefs to an employee or student, something else the Constitution specifically says you can't do.
So...if it's "wrong" for the State (President) to mandate beliefs, it's equally wrong for the church to mandate beliefs. Whoops. I guess the church missed that day in civics class.


I'm curious: exactly where does the constitution say that churches can't tell their employees or students how to behave?

Both employees and students are there, voluntarily (in the case of parochial schools). If you don't like the rules/job benefits where you work, go and find a different job.

A church can tell people anything it wants but when it demands that laws be changed to mandate its morality...

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:09:17 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
A church can tell people anything it wants but when it demands that laws be changed to mandate its morality...


I agree with you but neither can the government force the church to do something that is against their tenets.

I believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to mandate job benefits, anyway. The employers that want to attract the "best" employees will offer the best employment packages. If a company can't find enough people to work for them, they'll usually figure it out. If they don't, they go the way of the dinosaur (as they should).

This is almost like the government telling everyone that they must have two spouses, even though that violates some peoples' religious (or ethical) values. It's crap and clearly unconstitutional.

However, the constitution clearly states that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion which is what mandating that the Catholic (or quite a few other Christian) church(es) provide something to it's employees that they see as "sinful".



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:14:56 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:


I'm curious: exactly where does the constitution say that churches can't tell their employees or students how to behave?



We covered how the Constitution doesn't work that way back in like the first week of civics 101.

The real question you'd like to ask, I think, would be "Under what authority can any artificial legal entity dictate to a natural person any aspect of their private, personal, protected relationship with their physician?"

G-d didn't create Corporations. And where it counts, a Church is a non-profit corporation. The People created that non-profit. ( well, if you want to be specific, say in New York, the Secretary of State creates the non-profit when they accept the filing and fee, and as their creator, the non-profit corporation is endowed with only those privileges we decide to give them.

So, what law PERMITS a non-profit corporation to destroy the sacred doctor/patient relationship?




< Message edited by farglebargle -- 2/16/2012 10:17:39 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:23:44 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


I'm curious: exactly where does the constitution say that churches can't tell their employees or students how to behave?



We covered how the Constitution doesn't work that way back in like the first week of civics 101.

The real question you'd like to ask, I think, would be "Under what authority can any artificial legal entity dictate to a natural person any aspect of their private, personal, protected relationship with their physician?"

G-d didn't create Corporations. And where it counts, a Church is a non-profit corporation. The People created that non-profit. ( well, if you want to be specific, say in New York, the Secretary of State creates the non-profit when they accept the filing and fee, and as their creator, the non-profit corporation is endowed with only those privileges we decide to give them.

So, what law PERMITS a non-profit corporation to destroy the sacred doctor/patient relationship?





While I appreciate that you think you can read my mind, that is not what I wanted to ask. I asked my question in direct response to someone else's statement.

An employee of the church does not have to work there. They can go elsewhere for employment. No one's holding a gun to their head.

A student of a parochial school is there because they or (more likely) their parents made a choice to send them there. They are not required by law to be there. They are required to go to school but not a parochial school.

In either case, they are free to live their lives any way they choose. They are not free to get the government to legislate that a church violate its own beliefs. (and that is the way the constitution works)



Peace and comfort,



Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 2/16/2012 10:30:17 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:47:03 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

So...if it's "wrong" for the State (President) to mandate beliefs, it's equally wrong for the church to mandate beliefs. Whoops. I guess the church missed that day in civics class.


They had to race home to catch the ABC Afterschool Special on Medici Family

_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to GrandPoobah)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 10:54:01 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

An employee of the church does not have to work there. They can go elsewhere for employment. No one's holding a gun to their head.


Likewise, a church does not have to function as an employer.

To my knowledge, there's no special aside or privilege granted to the church once they enter into the world of an employer. Their existence as an 'employer' is actually pretty recent historically speaking. And they tried to argue the separation before when I was in school regarding wages and they lost. I absolutely think though that they should be able to tell nuns not to use birth control and abortions. Nor should they have to pay for it.
There ... compromise.



_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 11:20:57 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

An employee of the church does not have to work there. They can go elsewhere for employment. No one's holding a gun to their head.


Likewise, a church does not have to function as an employer.

To my knowledge, there's no special aside or privilege granted to the church once they enter into the world of an employer. Their existence as an 'employer' is actually pretty recent historically speaking. And they tried to argue the separation before when I was in school regarding wages and they lost. I absolutely think though that they should be able to tell nuns not to use birth control and abortions. Nor should they have to pay for it.
There ... compromise.




I don't care what they do with their nuns and priests. The government is banned from enacting law that forces any church to violate its own beliefs.

I'd like to add: it's not just the Catholic church that is anti-birth control. It's many denominations of "Christiandom". It's orthodox Judaism. It's Islam.

Also, I am all for birth control. I absolutely think it should be available to everyone but I don't think the government should be forcing churches to violate their own beliefs (and the constitution backs me up).

I'll repeat: I don't think the government should be mandating job benefits, at all but, I'll live to fight that one, another day.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 11:52:14 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		G
WRONG. There are a lot of laws that are constitutionally valid that churches must follow. Mormons used to believe in plural marriage and child brides. Some sects still do. Unquestionably illegal.
Other churches believe in not seeking medical care for their kids. The parents still go to jail when their kids die, regardless of how much their church tells them to believe in faith healing.

I could go on, but why bother? When a religious institution is acting as an employer, they have no more right to discriminate than any other employer. And the Catholic lost the moral high ground on ANY issue a long time ago.
[/quote]

I don't care what they do with their nuns and priests. The government is banned from enacting law that forces any church to violate its own beliefs.

Peace and comfort,



Michael
[/quote]

< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 2/16/2012 11:53:35 PM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/16/2012 11:57:22 PM   
SilverBoat


Posts: 257
Joined: 7/26/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
An employee of the church does not have to work there. They can go elsewhere for employment. No one's holding a gun to their head.

In either case, they are free to live their lives any way they choose. They are not free to get the government to legislate that a church violate its own beliefs. (and that is the way the constitution works)


The gun-held-to-head hyperbole again? ... Perhaps that's better than the rammed-down-throat that features so often in neocon rhetoric.

The facts of matters involving employment, insurance, personal and family solvency, etc, are that "elsewhere for employment" is not always a feasible option. Between exclusions, delays, etc for new-hire-employees, pre-existing conditions, etc, not to mention the current scarcity of full-time positions, many persons or families well above median income would be bankrupted by any lapse in medical-insurance coverage. There are enough such instances of people who have-to continue working at the church or whatever that free-to-seek-other-employers is not really an excuse.

With regard to what is and isn't in the constitution, as defined not only by its text but also by centuries of (often idiotic) court precedents, the government does have authority to define the terms under which contracts, such as employment, insurance, finance, etc may be agreed, even between private parties.

For example, regardless of Kevorkian's (apparently?) benevolent intent, people who contract to kill or be killed are subject to criminal prosecution. The same authority applies to commercial dealings in automobile seat belts, bumpers and insurance, (sometimes with other idiotic results); the government can impose standards on contracts without regard for the 'moral' nuances or leverage the parties to them may try to exert. People are free to not use the seatbelts, and face whatever conseqences, but a road-legal vehicle can't be sold without them. On that basis, since medical-insurance is functionally a three-or-more-way commercial contract, the goverment can define what minimum medical-insurance covers, and the employer can either provide that or offer whatever monetary equivalent (or not) is needed to hire and/or retain workers. In this context, employees are not forced to use birthcontrol, but the medical-insurance can't be sold without it. I'm not going to cite reams of case law, but the courts settled all that a long time ago (although for other reasons entirely).

... shrug ... That whole mess reduces to a strong argument for single-payer medical-insurance, probably best funded by a minimally progressive tax on all net income/profits/gains of all persons (including incorporated 'persons'). But employers don't want that, as it'd reduce their retention leverage. Coupon-clippers and vulture-capitalists don't want that, as it'd cut into their tax-break subsidies.

You're a smart guy, at least make sound arguments. Pax.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 12:09:02 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

WRONG. There are a lot of laws that are constitutionally valid that churches must follow. Mormons used to believe in plural marriage and child brides. Some sects still do. Unquestionably illegal.
Other churches believe in not seeking medical care for their kids. The parents still go to jail when their kids die, regardless of how much their church tells them to believe in faith healing.

I could go on, but why bother? When a religious institution is acting as an employer, they have no more right to discriminate than any other employer. And the Catholic lost the moral high ground on ANY issue a long time ago.


You believe those changes were constitutional. I do not. The fact that the government has already violated the first amendment shouldn't be held out as a reason for them to be able to do so, again. Is it precedence? Yes. Is it constitutional? No (IMO).

quote:

ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



That's the law of the land. The fact that the enactment of a ban on polygamy violated the Mormans' right to freedom of religion (IMO) is a problem and I think the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

Faith healing? I know very little about. I am un-sure of what my opinion may be but, at first blush, I question the parenting skills of a person who won't go to any lengths to protect their child. Likewise, I question the parenting skills of any parent that would remain in a church that teaches that going to a doctor is sinful but I don't get to make their choices for them . It's their conscience and beliefs.

I would point out that in the case of polygamy, assuming all people are of legal consent age, no one is being harmed. In your faith healing example, a child is dead. I have no memory of any such case but, I'll take your word for it.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 12:18:48 AM   
SilverBoat


Posts: 257
Joined: 7/26/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Faith healing? I know very little about. I am un-sure of what my opinion may be but, at first blush, I question the parenting skills of a person who won't go to any lengths to protect their child. Likewise, I question the parenting skills of any parent that would remain in a church that teaches that going to a doctor is sinful but I don't get to make their choices for them . It's their conscience and beliefs.

I would point out that in the case of polygamy, assuming all people are of legal consent age, no one is being harmed. In your faith healing example, a child is dead. I have no memory of any such case but, I'll take your word for it.


There aren't a lot of such cases, but even one child dead for lack of appropriate medical would be one too many. Unless perhaps, sociobiologial Darwinist Auto-Eugenics is the philosophoidal paradigm involved; the kid died because his parents/community weren't fit enough to propagate. (And that is a consistent worldview, just not one I'd prefer to exercise.)

< Message edited by SilverBoat -- 2/17/2012 12:24:50 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 12:39:49 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
~FR~

Yes that is completely bass-ackwards on the church/state thing. Religions are allowed expression and practice to the extent that they do not interfere with secular civil or criminal law. It doesn't matter what a particular faith claims as a religious issue or not, the law is the law. The law changes as society and technology and resultant conditions change, and if that process of adjustment were to be held at bay by some religion claiming 'we were here first' then that indeed would be a violation of separation of church and state. There are hundreds of things in everyday society, in professional ethics, in reference to poor people, in reference to money lending, in reference to a near infinitude of things that are covered in various religious tomes, so could thereby be claimed as a 'religious' matter. Religious tenets of some sort, of all major religions, are violated everyday by what the law says is legal and by what the law says is illegal.

Go ahead, bishops and committee, keep out the women from the discussion all you like, anachronistic as that is, because it doesn't matter when all you are doing is trying to slime your way out of having to adhere to the same Constitution and the same law that everyone else does by unconstitutionally claiming some hand picked item is a 'religious' matter only and the law should just go away and 'not interfere with religious rights' on this one. How utterly frikin' convenient. How utterly frikin' asinine.

So then, esteemed committee, what is the religious matter at hand? A rule of some sort? Does that rule have anything to do with women? Right, so even though this is a very important issue, we don't need women involved because it's strictly a religious matter, (even though the religious question at hand directly involves women), uhm yes, right, ... no wait, because it's actually a constitutional matter ...  no wait ... I know, I know, both institutions actually acknowledge that women exist, but this committee doesn't need any woman to speak on it because ... oh wait, we already said that ... well actually because ... wait, we already said that too ... ahem, 'call for recession.'




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 2/17/2012 12:53:13 AM >

(in reply to SilverBoat)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 12:42:22 AM   
SilverBoat


Posts: 257
Joined: 7/26/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
WRONG. There are a lot of laws that are constitutionally valid that churches must follow. Mormons used to believe in plural marriage and child brides. Some sects still do. Unquestionably illegal.

That's the law of the land. The fact that the enactment of a ban on polygamy violated the Mormans' right to freedom of religion (IMO) is a problem and I think the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.


Mormons, regardless of what they say, or their internal dupes believe about their 'religion', set up their polygamy/child-bride cults because they wanted to sire dozens of Mormon brats from women bullied into ignorant codependency. It's not a 'religion', unless every other sociopathic scheme to justify spreading male seed because its biological-imperative counts as religion too. What if the religion 'believes' in kidnapping nubile women, keeping 'em caffled and bred like cattle for ten years, then sacrificed to the great god Porn?

Sure, the Mormons have a twisted narrative they tell themselves, but motives behind it are clearly evident to any objective analysis.

Where does the line get drawn between 'freedom-of-religion' and psychosocial pathologies?

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 1:04:32 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I don't care what they do with their nuns and priests. The government is banned from enacting law that forces any church to violate its own beliefs.


So if a church doesn't believe that, say, Inuits are human, they can prohibit Inuits from joining their church? If they belive 12 YO kids work harder than adults, they should be exempt from child labor laws?

Sure you wanna go down this road?

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 1:45:23 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
~FR~

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The most taken out of context and completely distorted words in the Constitution. At one time, human sacrifice was a part of some religions. If the words in that first sentence of the first amendment be taken to logical extension of those who insist on distorting it, people would start new religions everyday to use the first amendment to circumvent the law. My religion says I must embezzle every working day or else I'm doomed to hell. I like this free exercise of religion thing!

From the time of the Reformation on the European continent along with Henry VIII's break with Rome up to and including the time of the American Independence, religious/monarchical/religious/land grab/religious cross border wars were fought, and very nasty religious/monarchical/religious/civil wars were fought, with an unholy excess of religious persecutions, torture, beheadings, burnings at the stake, and slaughtering of whole villages. Religious persecution existed on the NA continent too, don't forget the wacko Puritans, the witch burnings etc.

The new country wanted no part of either monarchy or established state religion, nor any part of telling people which religion they could or could not follow. Philadelphia, and later Washington, were not to be home for the state religion of the USA, not for the Anglican or any other church, no Bishop of Canterbury, no official prayer book, none of it. Unlike what most European countries had fought the Pope over for so many years, the US didn't care if the Pope appointed the bishops in this country or not because unlike those countries the US wanted no part in such appointments and it didn't matter anyway, because ... neither the Pope nor any bishop nor any preacher nor any religion nor any religious leader of any sort was going to tell the US government what they could or could not do! The founders of the new country fought to rid themselves of such tyranny, not to have it haunt us for all time.

THAT is what the admonition of  "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. Period. No government choosing one religion over another, because religion was not allowed into the government at all.

The phrase "free exercise thereof" meant that one did not have to worry about being burned at the stake anymore for professing the wrong faith, did not have to worry about being fined for not attending a church of faith he/she did not follow under recusancy laws, did not have to read from a prayer book of another religion, and a multitude of other such things as went on in Europe. It did -not- mean that any and every practice or belief within a particular faith could interfere with the law or especially the Constitution by virtue of being part of a religion. To allow that would be in complete contravention of the prohibition against establishment of religion by the government.







< Message edited by Edwynn -- 2/17/2012 1:54:50 AM >

(in reply to SilverBoat)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 4:12:14 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Montana32DDD

Yes, Conservatives must be tone deaf on social issues because ONLY the Democrat Party and their ilk know whats best for America. What close minded, intolerant, and idiotic thing to say. Doubly stupid as you force your will upon the American people, most of who, regardless of what the media tells you, simply do not want it. There was no birth control shortage, people who want birth control can get birth control. There is no issue here, other than the one Democrats dreamed up in a fantasy of tyranny as they force their will upon the people. It would not be so bad, except that left wing policy puts people out of work.
Enjoy.

Sorry Montana, not even close. This hearing is 100% grandstanding. The religiously intolerant could just as easily refuse this coverage. There are no conservatives in Washington...only politicians.

The only 'tone' in congress is repub opposition to Obama on ALL issues and now are again actually having a hearing that while not specifically on the provision, instead...pandering the religious 'tone.'

(in reply to Montana32DDD)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 4:27:28 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
WRONG. There are a lot of laws that are constitutionally valid that churches must follow. Mormons used to believe in plural marriage and child brides. Some sects still do. Unquestionably illegal.

That's the law of the land. The fact that the enactment of a ban on polygamy violated the Mormans' right to freedom of religion (IMO) is a problem and I think the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.


Mormons, regardless of what they say, or their internal dupes believe about their 'religion', set up their polygamy/child-bride cults because they wanted to sire dozens of Mormon brats from women bullied into ignorant codependency. It's not a 'religion', unless every other sociopathic scheme to justify spreading male seed because its biological-imperative counts as religion too. What if the religion 'believes' in kidnapping nubile women, keeping 'em caffled and bred like cattle for ten years, then sacrificed to the great god Porn?

Sure, the Mormons have a twisted narrative they tell themselves, but motives behind it are clearly evident to any objective analysis.

Where does the line get drawn between 'freedom-of-religion' and psychosocial pathologies?

First, the Mormons are as much a religion as any and you are not appointed to decide. Polygamy throughout history has been a state sanctioned practice for millenia and had nothing whatsoever to do with procreation except by choice. Monogamy on the other hand is only a few centuries old.

You merely conjure up some insulting, rhetorical rant to justify this legal regime forced upon people.

(in reply to SilverBoat)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 2/17/2012 4:45:39 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I went to a Catholic university and we women got our BC at the student health center, just like many young women at Catholic universities had done for years. And my local diocese actually provides BC coverage for their female employees. This is the USCCB which is nothing more than a religious right wing group that is opposing the mandate, even as they opposed the ACA even though the Pope has argued vehemently for universal health coverage for everybody.

Like I said, this issue is nothing more an issue devised by the right wing to oppose something Obama has done. The right wing wouldn't be saying against it (not even the USCCB) if a republican president had proposed it.


Actually, this wasn't even an issue until Stephanopolis tried to bushwhack Romney at the debate, then some douche finds an old Santorum interview, and takes a comment made seventeen minutes into the interview out of context, and the whole liberal media runs with all Conservatives want women barefoot and pregnant... This is nothing more than a typical liberal dirty deal.


_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109