RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf

RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 5:14:54 AM)
One *could* say that laws "enforcing" monogamy would be the government, forcing a religious practice on us because it was from religion that the idea of monogamy (as a hard-and-fast rule) came. You can say "what if ... ?" all you like and there are ridiculous examples that, obviously, shouldn't be allowed but, like it or not; if a religion says: "Our God tells us that birth control is a sin", they're whacky and a little ecologically irresponsible but who are they *hurting* ? Yes, as a society, we have a right to say: "You can practice your religion, all you want but human sacrifice is out" (I would like to say, however that I think I could even make a case for voluntary sacrificees). We have a right to say that because it affect us. How does it affect us if a Morman chooses to have 20 wives? Now, the bleeding heart types will say: "Nineteen of them are going to end up on welfare" Good call! Wrong argument. It's completely constitutional for the government to say: "For tax purposes and social welfare purposes, we will only *recognize* the first wife." Problem solved. We have *no right* to go fucking around with peoples' belief system when it doesn't put the public-at-large in danger. We have *no right* to say: "You can only love/live with/make children with one person" Edwynn, that blurb in red is so wrong, in so many ways. It is a complete "opposition safari" from what the words say. The words are pretty clear. In fact, one could argue that the words, as written, do *not* completely rule out the idea religious principles, influencing the laws. People need to stop calling that the "seperation of church and state clause" and start calling it the "protection for religion from government clause" because that is *all* it says. It's written pretty plainly. The government can't establish a religion (tell us what we must believe) and can't stop us from worshipping how we wish (tell us how to believe). Yes, we can't grab people off the street for involuntary human sacrifice but, surely, we can tell our followers that they are forbidden from wearing purple on Tuesdays? Jefferson wrote the first part because he (at the time) was an Atheist and didn't want fundementalism shoved down his (or anyone's) throat by mandate of law. That's what the first part is about. Of course society has a right to keep itself from from religious zealotry taking over but it does *not* have the right to prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit as long as they are not harming others. A church ... *any* church, refusing to condone the use of birth control is not harming anyone. To ask them to indulge in the very thing they denounce is preposterous and *that* flies in the face of the first amendment. What's after government enforced monogamy? Do we say: "Forget marriage. You can't have more than one lady in your bed? You can't have more than one lady in your life, ever?". How about the fact that some religions don't recognize re-marriage after divorce? Should the government say: "Ooooops! You've already been married, once. You've used up all your options. Sorry." So where does it end? Do we make a law, telling Muslims they can't bring their prayer mats to the county park with them, when they're out for a picnic with their family? Do we insist that Jewish Bingo halls or the YWHA put deli ham out as part of their menu? It's all well and good to say: "I don't believe as you believe and I won't have your beliefs thrusted upon me" but you cannot add: "So, therefore, I am going to enact a law to force you to conform to my beliefs (or lack thereof)." Peace and comfort, Michael

Exidor -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 5:27:13 AM)
quote: First Hannity's ridiculous "sausage fest" You're mistaking TV entertainers for the subjects they're expostulating upon. Their job is to stir people up. This increases their ratings, which lets their employers charge more for advertising. Which get them their paycheck. Did you watch one of those "conservative" shows and get angry? Bingo! You just got trolled.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 5:29:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie fr The OP: So the issue is social and not constitutional, is it? Let's see, Cummings wants to talk about it from a social perspective and Issa from a constitutional one. What's the hearing about? The hearing is entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” Yeah I can see why the socially conscious / emotionally driven might be upset about that, the constitution being an impediment to progressive reforms. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The President and his Administration actually didn't "do" anything. One department of the gov't interpreted a law passed by Congress. If Mr. Issa is upset with this his time would be better spent rewriting the law.......

thishereboi -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 5:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Your link has expanded my vocab: As of now, Collins and Snowe appear to be the only Republicans behind this massively bi-partisan compromise on Obama’s part, whereas the teahadist elements that are today’s GOP remain reliably rancorous and recalcitrant. A combination of Teabagger and Jihadist, a Teahadist is a domestic terrorist masquerading as a "patriot" in the US. The Teabagger feels that the only way to uphold truth, justice and the Constitution is to violently attack and threaten those who happen to disagree with said Teabagger's views. Phrases such as "defend the Constitution", and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" are often heard from Teahadists, although how much they actually understand what those mean is in debate. quote: teahadist When I read this I thought that term sounded familiar so I did a search. Imagine my surprise when I found this http://www.collarchat.com/m_3428057/mpage_3/key_teahadist/tm.htm#3431341 Now I know why it sounded familiar[8D]

DomYngBlk -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 5:46:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr One *could* say that laws "enforcing" monogamy would be the government, forcing a religious practice on us because it was from religion that the idea of monogamy (as a hard-and-fast rule) came. You can say "what if ... ?" all you like and there are ridiculous examples that, obviously, shouldn't be allowed but, like it or not; if a religion says: "Our God tells us that birth control is a sin", they're whacky and a little ecologically irresponsible but who are they *hurting* ? Yes, as a society, we have a right to say: "You can practice your religion, all you want but human sacrifice is out" (I would like to say, however that I think I could even make a case for voluntary sacrificees). We have a right to say that because it affect us. How does it affect us if a Morman chooses to have 20 wives? Now, the bleeding heart types will say: "Nineteen of them are going to end up on welfare" Good call! Wrong argument. It's completely constitutional for the government to say: "For tax purposes and social welfare purposes, we will only *recognize* the first wife." Problem solved. We have *no right* to go fucking around with peoples' belief system when it doesn't put the public-at-large in danger. We have *no right* to say: "You can only love/live with/make children with one person" Edwynn, that blurb in red is so wrong, in so many ways. It is a complete "opposition safari" from what the words say. The words are pretty clear. In fact, one could argue that the words, as written, do *not* completely rule out the idea religious principles, influencing the laws. People need to stop calling that the "seperation of church and state clause" and start calling it the "protection for religion from government clause" because that is *all* it says. It's written pretty plainly. The government can't establish a religion (tell us what we must believe) and can't stop us from worshipping how we wish (tell us how to believe). Yes, we can't grab people off the street for involuntary human sacrifice but, surely, we can tell our followers that they are forbidden from wearing purple on Tuesdays? Jefferson wrote the first part because he (at the time) was an Atheist and didn't want fundementalism shoved down his (or anyone's) throat by mandate of law. That's what the first part is about. Of course society has a right to keep itself from from religious zealotry taking over but it does *not* have the right to prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit as long as they are not harming others. A church ... *any* church, refusing to condone the use of birth control is not harming anyone. To ask them to indulge in the very thing they denounce is preposterous and *that* flies in the face of the first amendment. What's after government enforced monogamy? Do we say: "Forget marriage. You can't have more than one lady in your bed? You can't have more than one lady in your life, ever?". How about the fact that some religions don't recognize re-marriage after divorce? Should the government say: "Ooooops! You've already been married, once. You've used up all your options. Sorry." So where does it end? Do we make a law, telling Muslims they can't bring their prayer mats to the county park with them, when they're out for a picnic with their family? Do we insist that Jewish Bingo halls or the YWHA put deli ham out as part of their menu? It's all well and good to say: "I don't believe as you believe and I won't have your beliefs thrusted upon me" but you cannot add: "So, therefore, I am going to enact a law to force you to conform to my beliefs (or lack thereof)." Peace and comfort, Michael So in your world we should not outlaw polygamy on the basis that it is part of a religious belief?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 6:20:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So in your world we should not outlaw polygamy on the basis that it is part of a religious belief? No. In the United States of America, we shouldn't do that. In my world, a *lot* of laws would be removed from the books. To answer your question more directly (at the risk of repeating myself), I will ask you a question: If I am polyamorous and wish to marry (in religious ceremonies) three women, how does that hurt you? Peace and comfort, Michael

DomYngBlk -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 6:47:29 AM)
Nothing at all. And there is nothing to preclude you from having those wives in our sociey currently. Two won't be recognizied by law. Hence, the reasoning for covering contraception by Insurance Plans. A Company may hold that it doesn't believe that there should be contraception and are against it. However, it can't keep its employees from access to that medical coverage. We live in a pluralistic society. My tax dollars were taken by Bush to go bomb innocent people in Iraq. I didn't like it one bit but he and congress were within the law to declare war and do that......

DaddySatyr -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 6:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Nothing at all. And there is nothing to preclude you from having those wives in our sociey currently. Two won't be recognizied by law. Hence, the reasoning for covering contraception by Insurance Plans. A Company may hold that it doesn't believe that there should be contraception and are against it. However, it can't keep its employees from access to that medical coverage. We live in a pluralistic society. My tax dollars were taken by Bush to go bomb innocent people in Iraq. I didn't like it one bit but he and congress were within the law to declare war and do that...... That part in red was what I suggested, earlier but, you're not really on point. The polygamy argument came into it, later. Please read back as I don't feel like repeating myself for a third time. I will say this to you: My contention is that forcing a religion that believes contraception to be a sin to provide coverage for contraception to it's employees is tantamount to telling Jewish delicatessens they must offer ham to their employees. After all, all the other non-Jewish delis serve ham and cheese on rye; so should the Glatt Kosher deli. The deli is not a synagogue yet the person who owns/runs it is under edict of their faith to *not* consume or serve the meat of a pig to anyone. Peace and comfort, Michael ETA: Words in red were added because my analogy was bit incongruous

DomYngBlk -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:23:21 AM)
I think you are missing things here. The Catholic Church has no problem with contraception as long as "no act" is done. That is, Natrural Family Planning is ok. No act is done. Similarly with offering a Medical Plan with the rider of having contraception drugs covered is a "no act" position. It is up to the church to teach its employees and counsel them that it is morally wrong to take the drug. If they aren't doing this. ....the lack of action is on their inability to teach the flock. In your case a deli would have to directy ACT to get the non kosher food. Two different things entirely. The Papacy doesn't want to admit its defeat in this matter with the members of its church who overwhelmingly use contraception. And, not talking only of the US. Many othe countries follow the same path as well. They simply want to have the Gov't to do its job of religious teaching rather than their own. Its pretty sad altogether.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:26:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I think you are missing things here. The Catholic Church has no problem with contraception as long as "no act" is done. That is, Natrural Family Planning is ok. No act is done. Similarly with offering a Medical Plan with the rider of having contraception drugs covered is a "no act" position. It is up to the church to teach its employees and counsel them that it is morally wrong to take the drug. If they aren't doing this. ....the lack of action is on their inability to teach the flock. In your case a deli would have to directy ACT to get the non kosher food. Two different things entirely. The Papacy doesn't want to admit its defeat in this matter with the members of its church who overwhelmingly use contraception. And, not talking only of the US. Many othe countries follow the same path as well. They simply want to have the Gov't to do its job of religious teaching rather than their own. Its pretty sad altogether. Nope. They'd merely have to order it from Boarshead brand and have it delivered and available for their employees; much like the Vatican contracting with AFLAC for contraception coverage. Peace and comfort, Michael

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:32:35 AM)
There have been at least three cases of faith healing in Oregon where parents have gone to prison for allowing their children (from infants to a teenager) die for lack of medical care, often from easily treatable conditions. They haven't been able to convince a court yet that this was a valid religious tenet. I can see you are dogmatic on this, and your views are so extreme that they are hardly worth discussing. One big reason I disagree with you though that churches should somehow be exempt from the laws of this country is because they are so willing to take advantage of secular laws when it suits them. Like the wave of Catholic dioces that went bankrupt rather than pay judgments awarded their sexual abuse victims. Not very Christian, in my view, but what do I know? I'm not a Christian. quote: ORIGINAL: SilverBoat 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.)

DomYngBlk -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:39:12 AM)
Ordering it wouldn't be the issue for a jew, using and handling it would. Not the same with the vatican where one would hope that they had a flock that didn't mortally sin on such a regular basis wilfully. Its a stupid argument from stupid old men. If this was to hold water then they should eliminate any coverage that might be for venereal disease or any other sexually transmitted disease. Add to this any drug treatment for sexually blood borne diseases. But, no, that isn't done cause Father Patrick might have to worry about which alter boy he is going to rape this week.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:39:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet There have been at least three cases of faith healing in Oregon where parents have gone to prison for allowing their children (from infants to a teenager) die for lack of medical care, often from easily treatable conditions. They haven't been able to convince a court yet that this was a valid religious tenet. I can see you are dogmatic on this, and your views are so extreme that they are hardly worth discussing. One big reason I disagree with you though that churches should somehow be exempt from the laws of this country is because they are so willing to take advantage of secular laws when it suits them. Like the wave of Catholic dioces that went bankrupt rather than pay judgments awarded their sexual abuse victims. Not very Christian, in my view, but what do I know? I'm not a Christian. I confess to being as extreme in views as Jefferson, Madison, et al. I would say though that you are defending your position just as strongly and yet, I haven't felt the need to dismiss your point of view; just counter it. Peace and comfort, Michael

SilverBoat -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:46:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: SilverBoat 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. I'm entitled by freedom of thought and speech to decide and express My own opinion about LDS and any other 'religious' groups. That's not deciding for you or for anybody else, nor need I be appointed to anything to say what I think about such matters. I'd suggest that you read up on sociobiology (or evolutionary biogeneurosociopsychology or whatever) before commenting further about the what, how, and why of 'religious' memes. And, by the way, monogamy, (and polygamy, polyandry, etc) have been variously sanctioned or not by societies and governments not for centuries, but for millenia. In some cases, the culture's circumstances might favor certain modes, in others, the influence is merely psychosocial dominance. How long would the Muslim cultures last, if they were honest?: So sorry, Abdul, you're not 'successful' enough to have a harem, that's for the Sultan only because he's the alpha-male, so we'll get you to buy into this Allah's forty-houris-in-the-afterlife myth, okay? What about the Mormons; follow the 'religious' rules and you get to bone lotsa wives, kick the beta males out, and become a god of your own planet? Easy to see that in somebody else's culture, eh? Most people have some big-ass blind-spots about their own and the psychosocial memes in which they've been inculcated. And government has no authority about or isn't influenced by that? ... Really? ... ...

Yachtie -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:49:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie fr The OP: So the issue is social and not constitutional, is it? Let's see, Cummings wants to talk about it from a social perspective and Issa from a constitutional one. What's the hearing about? The hearing is entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” Yeah I can see why the socially conscious / emotionally driven might be upset about that, the constitution being an impediment to progressive reforms. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The President and his Administration actually didn't "do" anything. One department of the gov't interpreted a law passed by Congress. If Mr. Issa is upset with this his time would be better spent rewriting the law....... I titled the hearing? News to me. You should have stated that Mr. Issa could not have been more wrong, not me. Just saying[;)]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 7:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Ordering it wouldn't be the issue for a jew, using and handling it would. Not the same with the vatican where one would hope that they had a flock that didn't mortally sin on such a regular basis wilfully. I think you'll find that having it on premises and allowing their employees to eat it; just having it there would be an issue for them. In a Glatt Kosher deli I (a non Jewish person) cannot order and receive a roast beef and swiss because that would be putting two products from the same type of animal on the same plate. quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Its a stupid argument from stupid old men. If this was to hold water then they should eliminate any coverage that might be for venereal disease or any other sexually transmitted disease. Add to this any drug treatment for sexually blood borne diseases. But, no, that isn't done cause Father Patrick might have to worry about which alter boy he is going to rape this week. Christians are anti-sex? Not very forward thinking, if they want to make more little Christians, I would say. Actually, I don't think the vatican has balked at all at paying for/offering coverage for AIDS patients. In fact, I know of one place that was, at one time, the penultimate charity care giver in the city of New York that offered AIDS treatment for free. I'm talking about Covenant House, started by a Franciscan priest (Bruce Ritter). Talk about a direct ACT? No, the argument isn't stupid. You just don't agree with it and that's fine but once you resort to trivializing the other side's opinion, you not only insult them but you stop learning about how the opposition thinks/operates. Peace and comfort, Michael

RacerJim -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 8:10:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: 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. In what universe is there a shortage of birth control? this isnt about the shortage of birth control, this is about the tyranny of the catholic church trying to make all women, not just catholic women, abide by their beliefs. Please feel free to rejoin reality when you learn the facts This indeed is not about the shortage of, or any other aspect of, birth control but, rather, this is all and only about the Federal government trying to make all Religious institutions, not just Catholic churches, abide by its ideology in direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, this wouldn't be the first instance of Obama and/or his adminstration being in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution...Lybia comes quickly to mind.

mnottertail -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 8:24:27 AM)
Libya did no violence to the U.S. Constitution. And many Catholic organizations provide birth control: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc to this list offhand I would add Marquette, Catholic Charities of Buffalo, St. Bonaventure.... So, its political theater.

RacerJim -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 8:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Libya did no violence to the U.S. Constitution. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc to this list offhand I would add Marquette, Catholic Charities of Buffalo, St. Bonaventure.... Kucinich Sues Obama For Violating War Powers Act In Libya http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html And that's from a Democratic Representative and staunch supporter of Obama as well as the far left-wing Huffington Post

mnottertail -> RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf (2/17/2012 9:07:45 AM)
Yeah, political grandstanding, how'd he do? Kucinich is a well known idiotic. Are the provosts waiting outside the door to haul Obama away after his meeting with the Chinese? Didn't think so. Why didnt a republican bring suit? You know a sound constitutionalist like say, Santorum or Bachmann or.......all those guys who know the constitution so well, and cant that they are going to defend it to their last drop of blood?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875