Page 20 of 32 FirstFirst ... 10151617181920212223242530 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 639
  1. #381  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Sorry to break it to you but kids with health care die too.
    Yes. It's just that more of them die here than in countries with universal health care.

    In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

    France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease.
    From that lefty magazine, Business Week
  2. #382  
    Quote Originally Posted by semprini View Post
    You REALLY don't see the difference between 5 words written on the hand as reminders and ENTIRE SPEECHES that are read word-for-word at almost every single appearance? Seriously? 5 words = 500 words. Really?

    OK, if you insist on maintaining this attack, it means you either:

    (a) believe there's no difference between 5 words and teleprompter-dependence (which makes you look less intelligent), or

    (b) it shows that you're willing to wage an attack based upon something that most average people see as a complete non-issue (which makes you look hateful).

    I know people that will write notes on their hands if they can't find a piece of paper when they need it and I've never thought they were incompetent. If it works for them, fine. I guess I'm just more tolerant...
    So what you are saying is that Palin had every right to say that Obama can not do anything at all, with out the use of a teleprompter is OK. BUT, calling her out for having to use notes, which you just claimed is the same exact thing, is not acceptable. That is the very definition of hypocrisy!!!
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  3.    #383  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Who would of thought Palin ink scribbles could be such a springboard for all these pent-up frustrations. I guess it shows how tensions have really grown.
    I think my avatar agitates people.
  4. #384  
    Okay....so we have established that apparently when Diane Fienstein does it because she is a democrat (I guess this would be the reason?) it is fine, just not Republicans who you don't like? I mean, if that is the case, then I won't argue that point, but at least be a man and admit that you simply don't like Palin. I have a difficult time stomaching Pelosi and anything she stands for.....at least I'll admit that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #385  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I think my avatar agitates people.
    Probably no more than if you saw me in the business suit I wear almost 5 days a week.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  6. #386  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes. It's just that more of them die here than in countries with universal health care.



    From that lefty magazine, Business Week
    As usual youre cherry picking statements and using them out of context. A+ for consistency.

    BTW you dont look terribly bright using a Michael Moore film as a reputable source. What's your next trick. Claiming Avatar proves there is intelligent life on other planets?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. #387  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So what you are saying is that Palin had every right to say that Obama can not do anything at all, with out the use of a teleprompter is OK. BUT, calling her out for having to use notes, which you just claimed is the same exact thing, is not acceptable. That is the very definition of hypocrisy!!!
    Please re-read my post. I don't think you're getting it, either.

    Let me try again. Try really hard to follow me here.

    Here's what Palin wrote/read:
    - "Energy"
    - "Taxes"
    - "Lift American Spirits"

    Now, that's not a speech. That's points to talk about IN a speech. It's likely that she wanted to make sure that she emphasized (or added more detail to) those subjects in her speech. So, to summarize: 3 points, 5 words, added or emphasized during her planned speech.

    Now a teleprompter is for an entire speech. It could be hundreds or thousands of words, but not 5. Everything is read, nothing is left to chance.

    Here's an example: Notes would be like the Chapter listing at the beginning of a book. Using a teleprompter is reading the entire book. Few words versus reading the entire content. Is that helping?

    Or perhaps you're going into a meeting. Rather than reading everything you'll say in the meeting, you write a few simple notes (and you may even write them on your hand) that you can check to make sure the issues get discussed. Notes don't limit what you're going to say, they most likely will give you the freedom to say MORE than you originally planned if you were merely reading. (Chances are that if you only stuck to what was written down word-for-word in a meeting, you would be viewed with less regard than someone who simply used notes.)

    Here's what Obama reads...not using his own words or getting assistance from notes:

    - "We need all hands on deck. And so I am thrilled that we have Secretary Sebelius taking the reins. She is going to be immediately briefed on the issues that we're working on right now. I expect her to hit the ground running." - reading the introduction of a cabinet Secretary.

    - "In addition to John – sorry, the – I just noticed I jumped the gun here. [pause] Go ahead. Move it up. I had already introduced all you guys."

    - "First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama!"
    Last edited by semprini; 02/12/2010 at 02:22 PM.
  8. #388  
    GROOVY..
    Wow, lots of assertions and not a single fact! Nice!
    Very factual indeed, perhaps you should look into it, and try understanding what it is you actually believe in. It sounds like you would be very surprised.
  9. #389  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Okay....so we have established that apparently when Diane Fienstein does it because she is a democrat (I guess this would be the reason?) it is fine, just not Republicans who you don't like? I mean, if that is the case, then I won't argue that point, but at least be a man and admit that you simply don't like Palin. I have a difficult time stomaching Pelosi and anything she stands for.....at least I'll admit that.
    Well I dont think Diane Fienstein has a chance at the presidency. But by your analogy, then it is quite ok for your main man obama to use teleprompters, as did bush. Thanks for clearing that up after all this time.
    Last edited by redninja; 02/12/2010 at 02:26 PM.
  10. #390  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    As usual youre cherry picking statements and using them out of context. A+ for consistency.

    BTW you dont look terribly bright using a Michael Moore film as a reputable source. What's your next trick. Claiming Avatar proves there is intelligent life on other planets?
    I find it very odd, that you challenged my knowing of Jesus earlier. When it seems that your humanitarian level runs quite low. I would say, I think you know the wrong Jesus. But I hope you do find him. I've heard hell gets pretty bad down there. I wish you the best though.
  11. #391  
    KAM....
    I have no objectives to Muslims holding public office.
    Someone else's belief doesn't infringe on you--only an ACTION can infringe on you.
    ok, but when policies are built around beliefs, it does. Those policies become actions, here in the physical world, they affect us directly.

    Lunatics? I think you are getting a bit outside of reasonable here.
    Actually, hearing voices and having people accept that, is whats outside of unreasonable.
  12. #392  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Did Feinstein attack someone else for using a teleprompter before she was caught with notes scribbled on her hand?? NO! Did Palin attack someone else for using a teleprompter before she was caught with notes scribbled on her hand?? YES! That is the difference. That is where the source of the mockery is coming from.
    Absolutely agreed. Of course, dirt smearing is the only the thing right seems to be good at. And of course, when it's thrown back, it's poor pitiful us, we're mistreated by all these meanies. The morals of the 2 parties are extremly different.

    The GOP spoke and cheered with a crowd, that held signs of death camp corpses
    While Obama scolded the dems for wanting to go after lieberman

    There is a thick morality line already drawn in the sand.

    It is ok for them to lie, scam, steal, scare, whatever. But dont say anything about it, or else your picking on them again.

    Oh yeah, and perhaps the gop leader should of had a teleprompter at that teabagger thing, then maybe he wouldnt of talked the constitution and read the declaration. I can't imagine if pelosi or obama would of done that. They would immediately been coined unamerican for not knowing the difference.
  13. #393  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    No, the key difference is that a cult by definition is not mainstream as shown in #3 and #5c in your links. They are only interchangeable in the sense that they are belief based things.

    Calling a mainstream Religion a cult is in my view, just an attempt to denigrate something that you dislike.
    You can also look at it as saying that religion is not a cult to justify what you chose to believe.

    Is that what logic dictates?

    All very interesting. You aren't proving anything however.

    So, in your view is anything that you cannot explain impossible?
    But the argument against religion can be explained as I see it. Everything in our world and universe is a product of cause and effect. Nothing has ever appeared from nothing, and there is nothing that is capable of doing that. Science has proven that. Religion states that "god" made man, well who made god? It is not logical that he just appeared out of nowhere from nothing. That does not happen in our universe. I am not saying that I can not explain the "impossible". I am saying the "impossible" can not exist. I am saying that there is no such thing as "impossible".

    I'm not sure why you are making this artificial distinction. Why does it matter if Religion is the basis for a belief rather than some other basis?
    If it was just for you to formulate your beliefs, then it is fine, just keep that to yourself. If you are using your religion to impose laws onto me, that is where I have a problem

    Why would you, using your leftist ideals forcing something me be acceptable, but not if it comes from a Religion?
    Now matter how hard you try to justify it, "Leftist" is not a religion. Not any more than (since you insist on labeling with derogatory terms...) "Fascists". If you can label it thus, you should have no problem calling Christianity a "cult". Is conservatism a religion?

    Who decides that an idea is Religious and therefore not acceptable? Now, if you are saying there is a law requiring people to believe in a Religion or engage in a Religious practice, that's something different. Murder is Forbidden in Judeo-Christian Religion. Should we then say that we cannot have laws about Murder?
    So, without religion, there would be just rampant murder and mayhem in the streets? I find it so funny that people have to equate the 10 commandments with religion when if you read them, the ones that are not about god himself, are just common sense. So what you are basically saying is that without religion, there would be no common sense. I do not have a religion, yet I do not kill, steal, hurt, or bother anybody. Am I an anomaly?

    Yes, my analogy is absurd--because it is pointing out the absurdity of the idea that you can somehow cut out ideas that you identify as having a "religious" basis, any more than I can cut out ideas that I dislike (for any reason). You say that Religions has nothing to do with the basis of politics? Why? What gives you the power to define where someone's political ideas can or cannot come from?
    What laws do we have now that are a direct effect of religious beliefs? Murder, rape, theft? No, those are civil liberties. If there are currently laws that are religion based, and are they for a specific religion. Please give examples.

    If any of you believe this is what the First Amendment is about, you are WILDLY mistaken.
    No, it is the "separation of church and state" which I posted earlier, keeps the gov. out religion and the religion out of the gov.

    Also--Leftism is every bit a "religion" by your definition above.
    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
    I'd suggest that you have faith in your leftist principles. You believe in them don't you? There is no supernatural element in this definition.
    Edited to Add: I should note that, I'm just making a point here--about how these definitions can easily be used (improperly). I actually don't think that liberalism is a religion akin to Christianity, Hinduism, etc.
    Liberalism aka "Leftist"

    Well I just cleared that up for you. Your defenition of "leftist" is wrong...

    I think you fellows are WAY off base here. You cannot make some demand that people somehow separate their Religious and secular ideas in what they do. AGAIN, I ask--what is the difference if I advocate something because I have a Religious belief or a secular one? If I advocate Free food for the poor--does it matter to a third party where my belief comes from? The thing I'm suggesting is or isn't allowable under our Constitution--my reason or anyone else's reason for advocating it (which may be different) is really not relevant in a legal system.
    How is free food for the poor a specific religious belief? Again I ask, what laws do we have now are specifically the result of a religion?

    I think your Prejudice against Religion (which is what it looks like to me--correct me if I'm wrong) is leading you to a very strange conclusion. There is nothing in our system that allows you or anyone else to demand that they reject any reasoning for what they advocate. People are free to politically advocate for anything they want--for any reason. To claim that religion can not be a person's reason is simply incorrect.

    KAM
    I don't have a problem with religion, any of them. You have the right to believe whatever you like, as do I. Just don't try to convert me and keep it out of my government.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  14. #394  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Okay....so we have established that apparently when Diane Fienstein does it because she is a democrat (I guess this would be the reason?) it is fine, just not Republicans who you don't like? I mean, if that is the case, then I won't argue that point, but at least be a man and admit that you simply don't like Palin. I have a difficult time stomaching Pelosi and anything she stands for.....at least I'll admit that.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #395  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    ok, but when policies are built around beliefs, it does. Those policies become actions, here in the physical world, they affect us directly.
    Yes, the actual action, law, etc does effect you. The motivation does not. So, what does it matter what the motivation is?

    Is a law against murder unacceptable because it has a basis in Religion, but acceptable if it has a basis in some secular belief?

    What if you didn't know anything about the people who advocate something--only what they advocate? On what basis do you judge it? Obviously the answer is on what it is. Now, how does knowing something about the person change that at all?

    Again--what if two Senators support a given law--one is an atheist and one is a Muslim. Each supports it for their own distinct reasons. Is this valid in your view or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Actually, hearing voices and having people accept that, is whats outside of unreasonable.
    I think you might be taking things a bit too literally.

    KAM
  16. #396  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    ...What's your next trick. Claiming Avatar proves there is intelligent life on other planets?
    So you have hard evidence that there is not?
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  17. #397  
    Quote Originally Posted by semprini View Post
    Please re-read my post. I don't think you're getting it, either.

    Let me try again. Try really hard to follow me here.

    Here's what Palin wrote/read:
    - "Energy"
    - "Taxes"
    - "Lift American Spirits"

    Now, that's not a speech. That's points to talk about IN a speech. It's likely that she wanted to make sure that she emphasized (or added more detail to) those subjects in her speech. So, to summarize: 3 points, 5 words, added or emphasized during her planned speech.

    Now a teleprompter is for an entire speech. It could be hundreds or thousands of words, but not 5. Everything is read, nothing is left to chance.

    Here's an example: Notes would be like the Chapter listing at the beginning of a book. Using a teleprompter is reading the entire book. Few words versus reading the entire content. Is that helping?

    Or perhaps you're going into a meeting. Rather than reading everything you'll say in the meeting, you write a few simple notes (and you may even write them on your hand) that you can check to make sure the issues get discussed. Notes don't limit what you're going to say, they most likely will give you the freedom to say MORE than you originally planned if you were merely reading. (Chances are that if you only stuck to what was written down word-for-word in a meeting, you would be viewed with less regard than someone who simply used notes.)

    Here's what Obama reads...not using his own words or getting assistance from notes:

    - "We need all hands on deck. And so I am thrilled that we have Secretary Sebelius taking the reins. She is going to be immediately briefed on the issues that we're working on right now. I expect her to hit the ground running." - reading the introduction of a cabinet Secretary.

    - "In addition to John – sorry, the – I just noticed I jumped the gun here. [pause] Go ahead. Move it up. I had already introduced all you guys."

    - "First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama!"
    I am so tired of defending this to people who can not see past their own party...

    Before Obama used his teleprompter, did he criticize Palin for using one? (She did use them during the campaign.) No he did not. The only reason she does not use one now is because she made such a big stink about Obama using them, and that he could talk or answer questions without one. So she painted herself into that corner. She opened herself up to that criticism. If she had not did that, I would not care if she or anybody else used/uses notes, teleprompters, billboards or even carrier pigeons to make a speech. She did this to yourself.

    But no, you guys just tell me that I say that just because she is a conservative. Well I say you defend her poor choices and hypocrisy because she is a conservative, so I guess we're even...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #398  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You can also look at it as saying that religion is not a cult to justify what you chose to believe.
    So, by that logic ALL religions are cults then. Sorry--your attempted use of this word is a distortion at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    But the argument against religion can be explained as I see it. Everything in our world and universe is a product of cause and effect. Nothing has ever appeared from nothing, and there is nothing that is capable of doing that. Science has proven that. Religion states that "god" made man, well who made god? It is not logical that he just appeared out of nowhere from nothing. That does not happen in our universe. I am not saying that I can not explain the "impossible". I am saying the "impossible" can not exist. I am saying that there is no such thing as "impossible".
    I'm going to ask some questions to try and understand you better.
    Do you believe that everything in the physical world is defined and understood?
    Is there anything outside of the physical world? That's a bit open of a question, but are thoughts for example physical? Can they be quantifed physically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    If it was just for you to formulate your beliefs, then it is fine, just keep that to yourself. If you are using your religion to impose laws onto me, that is where I have a problem
    I am not sure where you believe you have the right to make me "keep it to myself." You have a right not to listen to something a religious person says, but they have no obligation to "keep it to themselves." I'm not sure why you can't understand that you do not have the right to restrict someone's expression of their religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Now matter how hard you try to justify it, "Leftist" is not a religion. Not any more than (since you insist on labeling with derogatory terms...) "Fascists". If you can label it thus, you should have no problem calling Christianity a "cult". Is conservatism a religion?
    As I believe I stated--no, I don't believe those things are ACTUALLY religions--I was merely illustrating that if someone used your line of thinking to distort definitions, they could make the same outlandish claim that you do regarding cults.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, without religion, there would be just rampant murder and mayhem in the streets? I find it so funny that people have to equate the 10 commandments with religion when if you read them, the ones that are not about god himself, are just common sense. So what you are basically saying is that without religion, there would be no common sense. I do not have a religion, yet I do not kill, steal, hurt, or bother anybody. Am I an anomaly?
    I don't believe I said that, and you are avoiding the point. My view on murder is at least partially based on Religious belief. By your demand, I would have to "keep that to myself." That is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    What laws do we have now that are a direct effect of religious beliefs? Murder, rape, theft? No, those are civil liberties. If there are currently laws that are religion based, and are they for a specific religion. Please give examples.
    Really? Why are they derived from a civil source? Because you say they are? I say they are derived from Religious belief. Who is right? The answer is that it doesn't matter--that is unless you have some prejudice against Religion and want to construct some bizarre exclusion against it.

    One could argue that many of our fundamental laws in Western Civilization are derived from a Religious basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    No, it is the "separation of church and state" which I posted earlier, keeps the gov. out religion and the religion out of the gov.
    Please point out where that comes from--where that is enshrined in law and states that Religious people have to "keep it to themselves." Your not even close to being right on this issue I'm afraid and we've got 200+ years of examples to prove it. People of Religious belief, including many of our founding fathers, freely expressed it, wrote about it and used references to it in conjunction to our very founding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Liberalism aka "Leftist"

    Well I just cleared that up for you. Your defenition of "leftist" is wrong...
    Ridiculous. That does not contradict the definition under Religion you had previously stated.

    Do you realize that one of the definitions of "liberalism" you posted is:
    2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

    Wow, I didn't expect that. Now, I wouldn't argue that is the common usage, but that's of course exactly what you are doing by trying to apply the term Cult to a mainstream religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    How is free food for the poor a specific religious belief? Again I ask, what laws do we have now are specifically the result of a religion?
    I didn't say it was exclusive. What if it is derived from a Religious viewpoint--does it suddenly become invalid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I don't have a problem with religion, any of them. You have the right to believe whatever you like, as do I. Just don't try to convert me and keep it out of my government.
    I'll take you at your word, but if I was judging by your posts, I'd say you are nearing a phobia level hatred of Religion.

    I wouldn't try to forcibly convert anyone, but I have no requirement whatsoever to hide my religious beliefs and create some impossible separation between them and secular beliefs for anything involving government.

    Anyone is free to participation in government, and is not subjected to an (anti) Religious test as you seem to be demanding. I'm not sure where your understanding of things breaks down, but you are imagining something that has never existed, or I'm completely misunderstanding the points you are trying to make.

    KAM
  19. #399  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    ...Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the mostprosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
    What happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
    100 years ago, besides taxes, we also did not have:

    Roads

    Plumbing/Sewage systems

    Electrical grids

    Advanced Medicine

    300 million people


    While I do agree with you, that the 545 could clean up their acts and learn to balance s budget, you do have to understand that being the best country in the world is not going to be free. It is like an auto racing line, "speed costs. How fast do you want to go?" Well we can only go as fast as we are willing to afford. I am not advocating the we should be paying more in taxes, but that we are not getting what we should be for what we are paying now.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  20. #400  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, by that logic ALL religions are cults then. Sorry--your attempted use of this word is a distortion at best.
    So, Scientology, to you is a valid and reputable religion and it's story of creation and Xenu is as legit and valid as your religions? If no, then why not? Is it because the story of Scientology was started by a man? Who started the story of Christianity? How is Dianetics any less true than the Bible?

    I'm going to ask some questions to try and understand you better.
    Do you believe that everything in the physical world is defined and understood?
    For a large part, yes. And what we currently do not understand will be figured out in time through scientific discoveries. I just recently went to the Griffith Observatory here in LA. They had a great demonstration of how our universe was formed and how it is evolving, all with scientific evidence to explain it. I would suggest to anyone to see it if you are in the area.

    Is there anything outside of the physical world? That's a bit open of a question, but are thoughts for example physical? Can they be quantifed physically?
    Who's to say our physical world has an end? The universe may just go on forever, without "walls". Maybe there are more universes beyond ours. As wacky as all this sounds, this is still more reasonable than the belief in a mythical "god".

    I am not sure where you believe you have the right to make me "keep it to myself." You have a right not to listen to something a religious person says, but they have no obligation to "keep it to themselves." I'm not sure why you can't understand that you do not have the right to restrict someone's expression of their religion.
    Your religion is your own. It is your personal relationship with god. Nobody is taking that away from you and nobody should. You can freely express it all you want. I would just like it to not be a part of my government.

    Most conservatives have a problem with homosexuality because "it is thrown in their face". That is one of the biggest gripes about gay marriage and gays in the military. Why is it OK for you to express your christian way of life when it is not OK for gays to express their way of life.

    As I believe I stated--no, I don't believe those things are ACTUALLY religions--I was merely illustrating that if someone used your line of thinking to distort definitions, they could make the same outlandish claim that you do regarding cults.
    Sorry. I personally see more similarities than differences...

    I don't believe I said that, and you are avoiding the point. My view on murder is at least partially based on Religious belief. By your demand, I would have to "keep that to myself." That is not the case.
    No. Do not murder is common sense, not a religious belief.

    Really? Why are they derived from a civil source? Because you say they are? I say they are derived from Religious belief. Who is right? The answer is that it doesn't matter--that is unless you have some prejudice against Religion and want to construct some bizarre exclusion against it.
    So religion is the only reason you do not commit murder? What about all of the wars that over religion? What about the guy that killed Dr. Tiller, in his church? Was his use of murder justified because it was an abortion doctor and he did it in the name of the lord? Is that still so even after the killer pointed his gun at 2 boys in the church as he was trying to make his escape? If it a justified murder, should you even have to "escape"? I guess you religion only tells you not to murder and tells others to murder. How does god decide who kills and how does not? Oh free will! Well if god gave you free will but told you not to murder, isn't that mixed signals? Which one of those signals is the right one?

    My point is, religion should not have to tell you not to murder. If you only base your reason for NOT killing people because a book told you not to, you have problems.

    One could argue that many of our fundamental laws in Western Civilization are derived from a Religious basis.
    I say that religion is only instilling common sense into those who may not have it...

    Please point out where that comes from--where that is enshrined in law and states that Religious people have to "keep it to themselves." Your not even close to being right on this issue I'm afraid and we've got 200+ years of examples to prove it. People of Religious belief, including many of our founding fathers, freely expressed it, wrote about it and used references to it in conjunction to our very founding.
    I did not say keep it to yourself. I said keep it out of my laws and government.

    Ridiculous. That does not contradict the definition under Religion you had previously stated.

    Do you realize that one of the definitions of "liberalism" you posted is:
    2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

    Wow, I didn't expect that. Now, I wouldn't argue that is the common usage, but that's of course exactly what you are doing by trying to apply the term Cult to a mainstream religion.
    So by calling you me a leftist, you meant to call me a protestant? Sorry, not the definition I was referring to when I posted that...

    I didn't say it was exclusive. What if it is derived from a Religious viewpoint--does it suddenly become invalid?
    No again, helping the underprivileged, if you are able to do so, to me strikes of common sense and just being a decent human being.

    I'll take you at your word, but if I was judging by your posts, I'd say you are nearing a phobia level hatred of Religion.
    No phobia or hate at all. In my real life. I keep my beliefs, and lack thereof, to myself. It is nobodies business but my own. I do bring it up here because here we are just anonymous blips on a screen.

    I wouldn't try to forcibly convert anyone, but I have no requirement whatsoever to hide my religious beliefs and create some impossible separation between them and secular beliefs for anything involving government.
    If true, that's fine. Many don't. I am looking at you, Mormons!!!

    Anyone is free to participation in government, and is not subjected to an (anti) Religious test as you seem to be demanding. I'm not sure where your understanding of things breaks down, but you are imagining something that has never existed, or I'm completely misunderstanding the points you are trying to make.

    KAM
    I do not want government to be anti-religion, just void of it...
    Last edited by Kenanator; 02/12/2010 at 05:22 PM.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken

Posting Permissions