Obama's war on Catholics

Quote from Brass:

I believe the distinction is largely in the numbers.
More...

Right, but many large organizations started out small as well. I really don't like the idea of 'size' makes it ok. We have 'size' in many, not so proud groups. Extreme in KKK etc.



c
 
All religions are cults. Accepting a person's teachings or scripture as true without any evidence other than "cause we say so", and with no basis in reality or supported by rational thought, is a cult. I mean religion.
 
Quote from Brass:

You mean you had doubts until RCG set your mind at ease? Inner turmoil, Lucrum?
More...

He might struggling to challenge in the GOP presidential race also. You know, absolutely hate a certain ideal or group until money is involved. Then you are having dinner and shaking hands with them.

Move over Mittens! Move over Newt! Hereeeee comes Lucrum!
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

He might struggling to challenge in the GOP presidential race also. You know, absolutely hate a certain ideal or group until money is involved. Then you are having dinner and shaking hands with them.

Move over Mittens! Move over Newt! Hereeeee comes Lucrum!
More...


I'm picturing luke sitting in Air Force One , and posting on ET. :( .
 
Quote from Wallet:

Without opening up a can of worms here over constitutional intent, the constitution was written to protect religion from government, not the other way around which seems to be today's interpretation.

Religious exemption is seen throughout our history, modern day examples include exemptions for Social security taxes as in the Amish, conscientious objectors from military service, religious exemption from inoculations, many others, etc, .........

To force a person to violate their true religious beliefs, imho is unconstitutional, which I believe is where this is headed.
More...

well said
 
Quote from Brass:

You mean you had doubts until RCG set your mind at ease? Inner turmoil, Lucrum?
More...
No, I was humoring RCG. You don't get out much do you?
 
Quote from Wallet:

Without opening up a can of worms here over constitutional intent, the constitution was written to protect religion from government, not the other way around which seems to be today's interpretation.

Religious exemption is seen throughout our history, modern day examples include exemptions for Social security taxes as in the Amish, conscientious objectors from military service, religious exemption from inoculations, many others, etc, .........

To force a person to violate their true religious beliefs, imho is unconstitutional, which I believe is where this is headed.
More...
In a civilized and civil democratic society, any strongly held personal beliefs are tempered by the rule of law. The Constitution wisely intended exactly that by using words which separate the vigor of peoples' many versions of true religious belief away from government. In doing so it profoundly protects religious belief and simultaneously, protects people from religious belief.
Religious beliefs no longer wield a free pass, nor should they. Many deep and strong beliefs fervently held as true, usually based on religious ideals, have caused mayhem throughout history.
Religious exemption from the law is not a just right. Because a person happens to believe a particular thing as true, does not then make it reasonable to be excused from the same laws everyone else - including those who deeply believe differently - are obliged to follow.

To address the points you raise.
Deeply held personal beliefs do not void responsibility.
If the Amish are required not to make social security payments, surely to be fair and just to all, that should be for specific practical reasons which make it transparently unnecessary and thereby outside any legal requirement. Not just because they are Amish with a strong belief they should not have the same responsibility to pay along with everyone else .

There is highly valid reason for conscientious objection from military service on humanitarian grounds alone, never mind religious, which has more to do with the question of subscription than a voluntary service, in where there are clear cut responsibilities to be honored.

Depriving a child of proven medical life saving care only on grounds of some deeply held religious belief, which by any other name is called superstition, is immoral. Parents' responsibility is to do everything to nurture and protect their child and quite rightly they are obliged under law so to do, by carrying out those responsibilities. Excusing themselves by dint of what they declare to be a true religious belief, to the point where they are willing risk the wellbeing, or life itself of their offspring, simply borders on the psychotic in my opinion and should be dealt with accordingly.

Not living up to commitments, to community, by exempting and excusing, to gain special privileges over others, for no reason than a belief. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Neither category has that right. If they do, as you suggest, that in my opinion is what's unconstitutional.
 
Quote from stu:

In a civilized and civil democratic society, any strongly held personal beliefs are tempered by the rule of law. The Constitution wisely intended exactly that by using words which separate the vigor of peoples' many versions of true religious belief away from government. In doing so it profoundly protects religious belief and simultaneously, protects people from religious belief.
Religious beliefs no longer wield a free pass, nor should they. Many deep and strong beliefs fervently held as true, usually based on religious ideals, have caused mayhem throughout history.
Religious exemption from the law is not a just right. Because a person happens to believe a particular thing as true, does not then make it reasonable to be excused from the same laws everyone else - including those who deeply believe differently - are obliged to follow.

To address the points you raise.
Deeply held personal beliefs do not void responsibility.
If the Amish are required not to make social security payments, surely to be fair and just to all, that should be for specific practical reasons which make it transparently unnecessary and thereby outside any legal requirement. Not just because they are Amish with a strong belief they should not have the same responsibility to pay along with everyone else .

There is highly valid reason for conscientious objection from military service on humanitarian grounds alone, never mind religious, which has more to do with the question of subscription than a voluntary service, in where there are clear cut responsibilities to be honored.

Depriving a child of proven medical life saving care only on grounds of some deeply held religious belief, which by any other name is called superstition, is immoral. Parents' responsibility is to do everything to nurture and protect their child and quite rightly they are obliged under law so to do, by carrying out those responsibilities. Excusing themselves by dint of what they declare to be a true religious belief, to the point where they are willing risk the wellbeing, or life itself of their offspring, simply borders on the psychotic in my opinion and should be dealt with accordingly.

Not living up to commitments, to community, by exempting and excusing, to gain special privileges over others, for no reason than a belief. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Neither category has that right. If they do, as you suggest, that in my opinion is what's unconstitutional.
More...

The modern day interpretation ..... see above.

Stu,

I wouldn't expect anything different from you, however your personal beliefs are meaningless in the historical accuracy of your posts.

The Founding Fathers were extremely religious, and extremely Christian in their beliefs, ( I understand there's a huge undertaking to rewrite history away from those facts, but they don't hold up under close inspection ) , all you need to see is in the Deceleration of Independence........

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The Constitution was written to form a government on these principles...... that the "rights" of the people don't come from the Government, they come from their" Creator"...." God given rights". Hence they can not be taken away and the Government is forbid in establishing a law that does that,

The Government exists to protect those rights..... not the other way around, protecting Government from the influence of Religion.

Sorry if that doesn't jive with your personal beliefs, it's just the way it was intended to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top