RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times

RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (Full Version)

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

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 3:50:32 AM)
quote: That's because they believe the crap they hear and actually know very little of how the Christian church here acts. Maybe. But put it this way: it's next to impossible to imagine someone with Mike Pence's views reaching a similar position of power here. He'd never have the required support.

Lucylastic -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 4:04:25 AM)
Sometimes the shades of puritanism in the US today equal those of the english civil war. I think we have been exposed to way to many evangelical and tv healers more than any other "congregation" in the UK I have actually been in a couple of congregations and churches in the US. Catholic and "Christian" altho not regularly. The Catholic mass was in latin, beautiful. Of course there are so many churches and so many denominations, even americans dont "know" what 80% of them are like either.

WhoreMods -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 4:50:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: That's because they believe the crap they hear and actually know very little of how the Christian church here acts. Maybe. But put it this way: it's next to impossible to imagine someone with Mike Pence's views reaching a similar position of power here. He'd never have the required support. Tony Blair wasn't far off Pence's level of self-righteous piety, and while I'm sure some would argue that he was playing that up some to endear himself to George the Second, it looks like it was innate given that the first thing he did when he ceased to be Prime Minister was convert to Catholicism.

PeonForHer -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 5:19:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Tony Blair wasn't far off Pence's level of self-righteous piety, and while I'm sure some would argue that he was playing that up some to endear himself to George the Second, it looks like it was innate given that the first thing he did when he ceased to be Prime Minister was convert to Catholicism. Doing that after he was PM makes a big difference, though. Also, he didn't sign any draconian religious freedom bills into law that promoted discrimination against LGBT people nor claim that gay partnerships were indicative of societal collapse. He didn't support anti-abortion legislation and accepted the theory of evolution. More crooked perhaps, but less mad, basically.

WhoreMods -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 5:22:10 AM)
How would you define him establishing those bloody faith schools, then? It's been suggested a few times that the reason the academy system is so shitawful is to encourage parents to stick their kids into those things instead.

bounty44 -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 5:39:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 All of the "Christians" I have met (except for the nuns I met as a child) werent very christian and they were hypocrites.. And the ones here certainly aren't any better. They are some of the most hateful, closed-minded people I've ever encountered. like I have said numerous times, its only when you are allowed to re-define words to suit your own purposes can you get away with stuff like that. also, sorry---having certain standards for living is not being "close-minded" (as if being "open-minded" was automatically a virtue??), its considering X and rejecting it based on values one holds dear.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 3:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap. Sorry babe, but that just does not follow. Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it. No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor. But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone? Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone? Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach.

bounty44 -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/29/2016 4:13:26 PM)
and desi---to merge what you just posted with what I posted just previous...everyplace ive ever been, its the Christians, either formally, or informally, who are running the food pantries and the homeless shelters.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/30/2016 8:35:58 AM)
and I see many run by non-xtians, or not as xtian based shelters or pantries. The largest in the US are certainly not xtian based.

thishereboi -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/1/2016 3:37:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: That's because they believe the crap they hear and actually know very little of how the Christian church here acts. Maybe. But put it this way: it's next to impossible to imagine someone with Mike Pence's views reaching a similar position of power here. He'd never have the required support. I am not sure what that has to do with it. The church didn't elect the man, it was the people who decided it was worth their time to get out and vote. And while some of those people do go to church, not all do and they don't all have the same beliefs so they wouldn't necessarily vote for the same person anyway. If fact had the election been held only at my church, people would be practicing the phrase "madame president" and others would be getting ready to be called a "women hater" every time they disagreed with her because the majority of the people who go there are on the left.

Awareness -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/1/2016 7:32:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 All of the "Christians" I have met (except for the nuns I met as a child) werent very christian and they were hypocrites.. And the ones here certainly aren't any better. They are some of the most hateful, closed-minded people I've ever encountered. Coming from you, that's irony right there.

vincentML -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/1/2016 9:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap. Sorry babe, but that just does not follow. Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it. No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor. But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone? Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone? Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach. You are correct, Des. The Left opts for government agency action while the Right favors private voluntary donations to agencies of charity. Then the donors can deduct their gifts from their income taxes . . . . And the Government pays anyway. Not to mention that the staff and CEOs of some of the charities take a larger slice of the funds then do the staff and heads of the Gov Agencies.

Lucylastic -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/1/2016 9:52:28 AM)
And the reasons governments had to take over from "charitable" giving, is that charitable giving, wasnt enough to cover the problems, in any sense of the word.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/4/2016 9:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap. Sorry babe, but that just does not follow. Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it. No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor. But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone? Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone? Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach. You are correct, Des. The Left opts for government agency action while the Right favors private voluntary donations to agencies of charity. Then the donors can deduct their gifts from their income taxes . . . . And the Government pays anyway. Not to mention that the staff and CEOs of some of the charities take a larger slice of the funds then do the staff and heads of the Gov Agencies. That's only if you hold the belief that income is government's in the first place. Another way to look at it, is that income is the people's and anything being paid for by the government is really, "and the taxpayers pay anyway." The biggest disagreement between government taking people's income to take care of the poor is more about it not being the choice of the people, completely opposite charity.

vincentML -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/4/2016 11:17:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap. Sorry babe, but that just does not follow. Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it. No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor. But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone? Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone? Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach. You are correct, Des. The Left opts for government agency action while the Right favors private voluntary donations to agencies of charity. Then the donors can deduct their gifts from their income taxes . . . . And the Government pays anyway. Not to mention that the staff and CEOs of some of the charities take a larger slice of the funds then do the staff and heads of the Gov Agencies. That's only if you hold the belief that income is government's in the first place. Another way to look at it, is that income is the people's and anything being paid for by the government is really, "and the taxpayers pay anyway." The biggest disagreement between government taking people's income to take care of the poor is more about it not being the choice of the people, completely opposite charity. The income belongs to the people until such time the people wish to have rules, regulations, law, order, and safety. When those services are desired the people have to pay for them. Those fees (taxes) are income to the government. It is easy to single out support for the poor for disapproval but the same does not apply, it seems, if the government decides to develop new weapons or to build new roads. Are they the choice of the people? Not necessarily. When Governor Pence offered a bribe of $7B to Carrier A/C was that the choice of the people? Someone else rightly suggested above that private charities cannot meet the necessary demand. So, no. Government is needed.

WhoreMods -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/4/2016 11:26:26 AM)
As far as the whole argument about Government usurping the correct role of charity goes, I'd suspect that charities get more rather than less donations as a result of tax dodgers wanting to look generous or salve their consciences.

Musicmystery -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (12/21/2016 7:44:44 AM)
The thing about identity politics is that it reflects the beliefs/fantasies of those making the labels. Those labeled don't act as a group.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125