RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement

RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (Full Version)

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

Message

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:33:11 AM)
quote: I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine. So we can further presume that if you worked at say a Catholic Hospital and suddenly one day you were told you had to leave because you use birth control, that would be something of an imposition into your specific constitutional freedoms, right? I mean there role is strictly that of an employer. You're not thinking of them as "holy" or spiritual in that transaction, are you? Cause I really think that if the church pushes this BC matter to the SC, they are FIRST going to have to determine the actual ROLE the church is playing in this transaction and find it is a completely secular one. As it should be.

Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:40:29 AM)
Funny.......on one hand we have cons declaring that there is no separation between church and state and on the other...get extra exercised when government gets involved in churches......like with the recent birth control fight. [sm=m23.gif]

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:47:30 AM)
quote: Funny.......on one hand we have cons declaring that there is no separation between church and state and on the other...get extra exercised when government gets involved in churches......like with the recent birth control fight. It's cherry pickin with a twist[:D]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:50:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine. So we can further presume that if you worked at say a Catholic Hospital and suddenly one day you were told you had to leave because you use birth control, that would be something of an imposition into your specific constitutional freedoms, right? I mean there role is strictly that of an employer. You're not thinking of them as "holy" or spiritual in that transaction, are you? Cause I really think that if the church pushes this BC matter to the SC, they are FIRST going to have to determine the actual ROLE the church is playing in this transaction and find it is a completely secular one. As it should be. You can presume as you wish but, would you rather hear my answer? Peace and comfort, Michael

DaddySatyr -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:52:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Funny.......on one hand we have cons declaring that there is no separation between church and state and on the other...get extra exercised when government gets involved in churches......like with the recent birth control fight. [sm=m23.gif] I don't know if you're mis-understanding what I said on the other thread or if you're being purposefully obtuse. I won't comment on the other thread, here because it would be a derail, at best and a hijack, at worst. Peace and comfort, Michael

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:54:59 AM)
quote: You can presume as you wish but, would you rather hear my answer? Oh please DO. That was the intent all along... so what's up with the delay?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine. So we can further presume that if you worked at say a Catholic Hospital and suddenly one day you were told you had to leave because you use birth control, that would be something of an imposition into your specific constitutional freedoms, right? I mean there role is strictly that of an employer. You're not thinking of them as "holy" or spiritual in that transaction, are you? Cause I really think that if the church pushes this BC matter to the SC, they are FIRST going to have to determine the actual ROLE the church is playing in this transaction and find it is a completely secular one. As it should be. If I were fired because I was using birth control, I would have recourse as that would clearly be a violation of labor laws with under-tones involving the 1st and 14th amendments (at the very least). I would (and should) win that court action. Those are my rights. What I have no rights to is to demand that my employer (the church) violate their own tenets by *paying for* my birth control. I have a right to use it but, I don't have the right to demand that they pay for it. That's entitlement and I have no right to that. Peace and comfort, Michael

kalikshama -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 8:11:00 AM)
Jon Stewart ripped into Republican Presidential Hopeful Rick Santorum on Monday night’s ”The Daily Show” for his inability to understand what former President John F. Kennedy once said about the separation of church and state. Santorum, who is on record as saying that he read Kennedy’s speech, and it nearly made him “throw up,” doesn’t quite seem to get it. But then again, there are lots of things that Santorum doesn’t seem to get lately. Here’s the video from last night’s “The Daily Show”: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-february-27-2012-neil-degrasse-tyson And here’s more on the situation: As Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney enter a crucial day for both of their candidacies for the Republican presidential nomination, Santorum continues to alienate himself from the mainstream by making sexually and religiously charged statements that keep pushing him further to the right. In a race among Republicans, maybe this is the way to go about it. But the Republican voters know that they’re not going to beat Barack Obama with a crazed, gay-hating radical right-winger, and that they need their candidate to appear as left-leaning (or at least left-accommodating) as possible. That’s where Romney comes in. And yes, Stewart hits the nail on the head when he wonders aloud why Romney hasn’t absolutely obliterated Santorum yet. Here’s more on the incident from Mediaite: Stewart had two juicy Santorum quotes waiting for him this weekend, and the first he went for was that Kennedy’s separation of church and state comments made him want to throw up because it sounded like he wanted all faiths excluded from the government. “How do you hear ‘all faiths are welcome’ as ‘no faiths are welcome’?” he asked, shocked, jokingly interpreting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s famous line as “no black or white children can play together, only children of no color are allowed to play.” He concluded it was fine that Santorum felt the way he did about Kennedy because “if John F. Kennedy were alive today, knowing you were running for President would make him shit his pants.” Not that Romney was doing much better, calling NASCAR “sport” (“Sport is something that requires a horse or a boat or an ascot,” Stewart corrected) and talking about all his NASCAR team owning friends. But Stewart could not leave the segment without playing the clip of Santorum saying “what a snob!” after noting that President Obama likes the idea of people going to college. “Ooh, look who’s educating his children,” Stewart faux taunted, before getting serious again: “You’re against people educating their kids because it’s fancy?”

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 8:24:47 AM)
quote: What I have no rights to is to demand that my employer (the church) violate their own tenets by paying for my birth control. I have a right to use it but, I don't have the right to demand that they pay for it. That's entitlement and I have no right to that. And this is where your argument goes completely into the weeds in a legal sense. 'The Church' has forgone any rights which distinguish it as a person of faith (which is WHOM the 1st amendment speaks to) in order to enter into the ROLE of employer. From that moment forward 'The Church' enjoys no special distinction, and therefore is obligated to provide what ANY OTHER EMPLOYER IN THE US IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. It's that simple. And if anyone's dumb enough to risk the broader scope of the beat down they'll get in the USSC, I wish em God's speed in their fool's errand. Just one issue with that. 'The Church' knows what a bullshit firmament they stand on which is why they're bringing this matter to the courts in a bible thumper (in 5 of 7 for sure ,borderline in the other two) states. Otherwise, you would see it brought in either New York or Massachusetts where they won't get an easy ruling the constitution will actually be looked at. But why am I boring you with the legal realities of the issue? Hey ... here's a fun exercise find a case with similar attributes where the USSC has ruled in favor of 'The Church'. We know that ROUTINELY in recent years virtually all the lower courts ruled against the "religious beliefs" (or so they were expressed as such by the religious entities involved in said suits) in cases where medicines were blocked from patients by order of clergy. in fact there have been MANY wrongful endangerment convictions and even wrongful death convictions upheld in cases such as these. Is it possible that you interpret the 1st Amendment as what Jefferson extrapolated upon it as opposed to what it intrinsically means?

SoftBonds -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 8:27:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: epeterson11 All of you scholars will notice that nowhere does our Bill of rights mention a, “separation of church and state.” Raise your hand if you can tell me from where that phrase originally emanates. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” This what Santorum said: “The idea that the church can have no influence or involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says 'free exercise of religion,' that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith into the public square.” I don’t hear Santoum advocating for a state religion. What Santorum was saying is that religion is part of the composition of the American psyche. Over 80% of Americans identify with a specific religious denomination with over 60% being Christians. It’s indisputable that the foundation of our law is Judeo Christian morality and more specifically the 10 commandments. So while we have no official state religion, Santorum does not want to disenfranchise religious people from access to government and they shouldn’t be anymore than atheists or any other particular group should be. Especially not us kinksters. Isn't it wrong for an Artificial Legal Entity with no natural rights, only privileges we, The People grant, and WITHOUT A VOTE to tamper with the elections of us REAL PEOPLE? They don't have a vote, why do you think they should have a voice? While I believe personally that it is wronge for an Artificial Legal Entity to tamper with the elections of real people, the Supreme Court in Citizens United disagreed with us...

DaddySatyr -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 8:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper And this is where your argument goes completely into the weeds in a legal sense. 'The Church' has forgone any rights which distinguish it as a person of faith (which is WHOM the 1st amendment speaks to) in order to enter into the ROLE of employer. From that moment forward 'The Church' enjoys no special distinction, and therefore is obligated to provide what ANY OTHER EMPLOYER IN THE US IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. It's that simple. And if anyone's dumb enough to risk the broader scope of the beat down they'll get in the USSC, I wish em God's speed in their fool's errand. Just one issue with that. 'The Church' knows what a bullshit firmament they stand on which is why they're bringing this matter to the courts in a bible thumper (in 5 of 7 for sure ,borderline in the other two) states. Otherwise, you would see it brought in either New York or Massachusetts where they won't get an easy ruling the constitution will actually be looked at. But why am I boring you with the legal realities of the issue? Hey ... here's a fun exercise find a case with similar attributes where the USSC has ruled in favor of 'The Church'. We know that ROUTINELY in recent years virtually all the lower courts ruled against the "religious beliefs" (or so they were expressed as such by the religious entities involved in said suits) in cases where medicines were blocked from patients by order of clergy. in fact there have been MANY wrongful endangerment convictions and even wrongful death convictions upheld in cases such as these. Is it possible that you interpret the 1st Amendment as what Jefferson extrapolated upon it as opposed to what it intrinsically means? Well, you believe that and that's fine. It's okay that you dislike religion or religous entities (churches) but, you seem to be saying: "I want this because it's my right but, I don't care about the rights of others" I gave a really good analogy in the aforementioned "other thread" but it fell on deaf ears. I am *not* saying that the church can impose their beliefs on someone (making adherence to their beliefs a prerequisite to maintaining employment) but, if you want to be consistent (and follow the law, by the way), you cannot ask for the practice of the non-believer (the employee that uses birth control) to be forced on the church. In simpler terms, you can't say: "Don't push your beliefs on me while I'm pushing my beliefs on you." Peace and comfort, Michael

slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 8:46:58 AM)
God spare me from those that believe in you Amen

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 11:41:18 AM)
quote: Well, you believe that and that's fine. It's okay that you dislike religion or religous entities (churches) but, you seem to be saying: "I want this because it's my right but, I don't care about the rights of others" If that's what you're gleaning from what I have written, I'm going to need let you fall off in your bliss Dude. That isn't at all what I said. And the analogy WOULD have been good if it in the end followed the flow of the constitution, which it did not. Finally you use terms like "deaf ears' as some kind of dodge. I made the point PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN that "the church" HAS TAKEN THE ROLE OF EMPLOYER. Remember that specific characterization. That's a business and ENTIRELY NON-SPIRITUAL. A private business entity is being subjected to the same fair regulation other businesses are and THEY the business are trying to wiggle out of their contract. And I think you know that's the case otherwise you'd have at least tried to meet the challenge for evidence supporting your faulty claim. I guess we'll need to wait till well after the election to see that I'm right. This dog CERTAINLY won't make it before the USSC for a long time, provided of course the 7 cases get a Clem Kadiddlehopper on the bench. Cause one sane judge with average constitutional aptitude gets this case and it's over. And in the manner I am alluding to.

slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 12:53:12 PM)
The church,when it decides to enter into secular activities become subject to the laws of the land. That seems plain and simple to me,after all even the Church can not have it's holy bread and eat it too [:)]

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 1:23:22 PM)
quote: Church can not have it's holy bread and eat it too But the like their constitutional abracadabra when ever the cameras are turned on. And when that magic moment comes and they don't like the president who's admin calls for the policy misogynists become feminists and even constitutional scholars. Bottom line Mike, nothing butchers the foundational documents of this nation better than drive-time academes.

Fightdirecto -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 3:17:35 PM)
As a PK (Preacher's Kid - American Baptist Convention minister), I am well aware of the Religious Right's argument that the 1st Amendment only forbids the U. S. Congress - but not the individual states or counties or townships - from passing laws establishing a specific religion as the only legally allowable religion and/or passing laws making specific religions or atheism illegal. By this Religious Right interpretation of the 1st Amendment, Alabama (for example) could pass a state law making atheism or Buddhism a crime without violating the U. S. Constitution. Most Americans are unaware that under the Massachusetts State Constitution, up until 1813, all taxpayers had to pay taxes to maintain their local Congregational Church and pay the salary of it's minister, regardless of their own religious beliefs. In Maryland, from 1919 to 1954, Roman Catholics were forbidden to hold elective office by the Maryland State Constitution. Neither were ever successfully challenged in Federal court under the 1st Amendment.

SoftBonds -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 3:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto As a PK (Preacher's Kid - American Baptist Convention minister), I am well aware of the Religious Right's argument that the 1st Amendment only forbids the U. S. Congress - but not the individual states or counties or townships - from passing laws establishing a specific religion as the only legally allowable religion and/or passing laws making specific religions or atheism illegal. By this Religious Right interpretation of the 1st Amendment, Alabama (for example) could pass a state law making atheism or Buddhism a crime without violating the U. S. Constitution. Of course, doing that would cause local property values to go down as "criminals," sold their homes and left the state. Other "criminals," would refuse to move there, and lots of businesses would avoid expanding in the state because of the difficulty of sending "criminal" workers there (managers are frequently sent to different areas to inspect or take charge of difficulties). So I'd love to see a few states try it. Would be a good example to all, might help the libertarian party too!

SternSkipper -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 7:24:27 PM)
quote: As a PK (Preacher's Kid - American Baptist Convention minister), I am well aware of the Religious Right's argument that the 1st Amendment only forbids the U. S. Congress - but not the individual states or counties or townships - from passing laws establishing a specific religion as the only legally allowable religion and/or passing laws making specific religions or atheism illegal. Oh, I am aware of those attempts to create anomaly and to the best of my knowledge all known instances. My last comment was addressing the kind of half assed arguments offered by people who at the same time try to infer you hate religion to support their weak kneed effort to sound constitutionally learned. Fact is, I bring my kids to church more often than not these days because THEY have chosen to receive the sacraments and I've had the aforementioned discussion with my pastor, who's a family friend and he has NEVER raised any questions about my emotional or ethical relationship with the church. And for someone on this space to tell me what I think is just a demonstration of pure enfeeblement. That's all I was getting at.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/28/2012 8:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 John F. Kennedy said in Houston TX that he believed in an America where the separation of church and state was absolute. Rick Santorum said he does not believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. Considering that the founding fathers made it clear that there was to be a separation of church and state, where do you fall in the two statements? When you figure in that all nine Supreme Court Justices have stated there is a wall of separation between church and state in the US, how can Santorum make such a statement that is clearly defying the Constitution of the United States? Why do the founding Fathers have to be so magnificent? They've been interpreted a thousand different ways, each of which has been dissected (a billion times over), each of which has been "proven wrong". And right. Why are they so smart? Why are they....so magnificent? They were only prodigious. Nothing more.

GrandPoobah -> RE: Do you agree or disagree with the statement (2/29/2012 12:59:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah The distinction, which he has made clear, is that he wishes to take specific religious beliefs and make them the law of the land. THAT would constitute a direct threat to "the free exercise thereof" if I'm forced to believe what someone else tells me to believe. Back in the days of Kennedy's campaign, the fear was that the Pope would become, de facto, the President. Kennedy said that wouldn't be the case, and it never came up again during his administration. Santorum, on the other hand, is openly saying it would, or will, be the case if he's elected. If the church (i.e.the Pope) tells him that's what he, as a Catholic, should believe, then he's publicly stated that's what he'd seek as the law of the land. Therein lies the difference, and the reason people fear for their Constitutional freedoms. Let's go with this logic, then ... "Thou shalt not commit murder" Fifth commandment. Should we make murder legal? After all, it's a specific religious belief as spelled out in the (gasp) Bible. "Thou shalt not steal" Seventh or Eighth commandment, depending upon which version you accept. If you think we should make this one legal, can you give me your address and an inventory of your stuff? Obviously, I'm being a little silly but to think that our laws are not already influenced (by design) by Judeo Christian values is failing to see the truth. I am not for an established state religion but the seperation already isn't absolute. Do I think President Kennedy was a good president? Sure. I think he was the model for just about every democratic president that followed him (Johnson was unlike anyone). I also believe that President Kennedy believed in an absolute seperation of church and state. I also believe he believed that adultery was okay. Any statement starting with: "I believe ..." is the very crux of the issue. We can't be told what to believe by the state. We also can't be told that our rites of our faith must not be practiced. Would enacting all of the Ten Commandments (as an example) into law be problematic? Hell yes. I once saw a TV show that mentioned this and one of the characters said: "Well, 'Honor thy father and thy mother' is going to be a problem and, if they charged me with that crime, I'd probably bear false witness." With the exception of the things in the Ten Commandments which are absolutely items of faith ("I am the Lord thy God ..."), I think we have all of the others covered. Stealing, murder, bearing false witness (perjury). Even a "nod" was given to adultery (in old divorce laws). I would *love* to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine. I had a school principal once threaten to "punish" my youngest for saying grace over his food. I asked if he was suggesting that other kids pray with him. The answer was: "No". I asked if he was praying, out loud. "No", again. I was told: "Mr. C _ _ _ _ _ _, if this doesn't stop, we'll have to sit him in a seperate room for lunch." How *isn't* that " ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof."? For those that care, it didn't happen. The school was just trying to "scare" us. Also, I want to say that I am no longer a practicing Catholic. I have beliefs but (as near as I can tell) they're mine, alone. You bet your bippy I don't want someone else's beliefs infringing upon mine but I want to be free to exercise my beliefs. Peace and comfort, Michael Much of your observation, while perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, I agree with. Clearly the principles that were written in the Bible...and elsewhere...found their way into the legal codes that preceded our own, and murder is almost uniformly "illegal" in almost every country. The issue, I think, is that we are now venturing into areas that are not commonly found in things like the Magna Carta and similar legal codes. From what I've seen, there is no legal basis for allowing or denying access to birth control beyond religious dogma. That seems to be exclusively the province of the church. Since the issue is not "medical" (as in are there safe methods available) it's clearly something else. Like your child saying Grace privately, I see no reason for the government to be involved...until people are denied "equal rights" because of those beliefs. It's the old saw..."Your right to swing your fist stops somewhere short of my face." Well, now we have a candidate who pretty clearly wants to hit you in the face, and thinks that's not only fine...but his right. I have a problem with that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125