Separation of Church and State

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics. It just seems that religion in politics slows down progress as in the case of stem cell research or the allows for a man like Scott Roeder to use the pathetic argument “I wanted to save the children” in defending his cold blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller.

By allowing religion into politics it forces those who don’t follow or believe to be subject to those religious laws which isn’t fair. If you don’t believe in premarital sex - fine don’t have it - but don’t tell other people they can’t :)[/quote]

Then don’t tell me you are going to tax me so raising the child, or abortion, or treatment for STD or treatment of psychological issues can all be funded.

This is the problem, at least from my perspective, The reason many of are so adamant about what seems like intrusive laws is because the government is taking our money to fund others immorality or irresponsibility. I think you would see a lot less of this if that were to change.

Like the major opposition to huge influx of immigration, aside from a majority of it being illegal, is that they are given entitlements from our system that they do not fund. If we to remove all entitlements and stop using others money to give to them it would have two effects, less influx and less resistance.

similarly if you want to be a glutton, lazy, homo, any number of immoral, irresponsible acts that is fine it is your life. But the second someone uses money taken from me to fund the treatment or further irresponsibility, it ins no longer your right.

By accepting those entitlements you are sacrificing your rights, to submit to the conditions of the entitlement.

22

Stupid bigot.

23

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Stupid bigot.[/quote]

lol

24

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Stupid bigot.[/quote]

NO, I guess I should have clarified, any act that carries more risk. Engaging in homosexual behavior does put you at a greater risk for HIV, which carries an extremely expensive treatment regiment.

Statistics is not bigotry, and to believe so is utterly moronic.

now if that was more a joke post sorry, but I get sick of people saying that using stat’s for human behavior is bigotry.

I used to fight professionally, that is an increased risk behavior. When I got hurt why should expect others to pay for my bills.

My primary emphasis is morality in legislation because of entitlement programs. Be it Christianity, social justice any of these moralistic expressions finding their way into legislation. By superscribing to the idea of allowing the government to take money from one you person and give it to someone else; whether for food, welfare, health care, unemployment comp. You are giving the government the right and obligation to tell you how to live your life.

25

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics.[/quote]

Actually, it’s the other way around. Politics has no place in religion. Or education, or health care, or air line security, or defense, or building cars, etc…

26

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Stupid bigot.[/quote]

NO, I guess I should have clarified, any act that carries more risk. Engaging in homosexual behavior does put you at a greater risk for HIV, which carries an extremely expensive treatment regiment.

Statistics is not bigotry, and to believe so is utterly moronic.

now if that was more a joke post sorry, but I get sick of people saying that using stat’s for human behavior is bigotry.

I used to fight professionally, that is an increased risk behavior. When I got hurt why should expect others to pay for my bills.

My primary emphasis is morality in legislation because of entitlement programs. Be it Christianity, social justice any of these moralistic expressions finding their way into legislation. By superscribing to the idea of allowing the government to take money from one you person and give it to someone else; whether for food, welfare, health care, unemployment comp. You are giving the government the right and obligation to tell you how to live your life.

[/quote]

Problem is the first people to point out the high risk of STDs in homosexual activities are the ones that already have a strong bias against homosexuals and are just looking to retroactively substantiate their bias. Engaging in unprotected sex with numerous untested partners, while not getting tested yourself, is risky and irresponsible - but I’ve never heard anyone bring up the morality of Wilt Chamberlains bedding two thousand plus women (or something like that), or the “success” authors of “How to get stupid women to sleep with you” books claim to have in bedding lots of women.

Their behavior is risky and irresponsible too. So if the problem was irresponsible behavior, the same people who bash gays would bash them as well, but they dont. Leading me to believe they simply have an anti-gay bias and use the STD incidence to support it.

But, back on topic: The problem seems to be the enforcement of “let everyone worry about themselves”. If someone with no money goes to the hospital with a broken arm, should they simply be turned away without medical treatment?

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics.[/quote]

Actually, it’s the other way around. Politics has no place in religion. Or education, or health care, or air line security, or defense, or building cars, etc…[/quote]

Stop being reasonable.

28

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics.[/quote]

Actually, it’s the other way around. Politics has no place in religion. Or education, or health care, or air line security, or defense, or building cars, etc…[/quote]

Stop being reasonable. [/quote]

What should the role of politics be, then?

Note: Honest question, not defending anything.

29

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics.[/quote]

Actually, it’s the other way around. Politics has no place in religion. Or education, or health care, or air line security, or defense, or building cars, etc…[/quote]

Stop being reasonable. [/quote]

What should the role of politics be, then?

Note: Honest question, not defending anything.[/quote]

Politics should have no role in the associations of individuals.

30

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Problem is the first people to point out the high risk of STDs in homosexual activities are the ones that already have a strong bias against homosexuals and are just looking to retroactively substantiate their bias. Engaging in unprotected sex with numerous untested partners, while not getting tested yourself, is risky and irresponsible - but I’ve never heard anyone bring up the morality of Wilt Chamberlains bedding two thousand plus women (or something like that), or the “success” authors of “How to get stupid women to sleep with you” books claim to have in bedding lots of women.

Their behavior is risky and irresponsible too. So if the problem was irresponsible behavior, the same people who bash gays would bash them as well, but they dont. Leading me to believe they simply have an anti-gay bias and use the STD incidence to support it.

But, back on topic: The problem seems to be the enforcement of “let everyone worry about themselves”. If someone with no money goes to the hospital with a broken arm, should they simply be turned away without medical treatment?[/quote]

Ok well to me, both are sexually immoral. But in the US male/male sexual orientation has the highest rate of HIV infection. And I would argue the numbers are skewed more towards not trying to back they trend given impact of our pc mindest on research. I have seen it first hand; from the wording of results, to study designs themself.

And as far as health care, yes I believe a hospital should be able to turn away someone who does not or can not pay.

Health care, treatment of disease, therapy. All of these are not rights. They are services provided by someone else.

Now if a doctor wants to volunteer their time, or a group of people of community or heaven forbid a church, wants to organize some kind of treatment center at a discounted rate they can and are free to. But new medicine and research cost money. Tax payers and those who pay their bills should not be forced to not only cover that, but also the ones who abuse the ER to be seen or don’t pay.

Seriously, Why should I be forced to pay extra to cover someone else. when it will put me to a point where it could hurt me financially.

Peoples ideas of these entitlements infringe on others rights. There is a difference between not providing a service because you can’t pay and some entity taking money from someone who owns it(see here property) to give o someone who doesn’t . It is not voluntary and thus violates their rights.

31

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And as far as health care, yes I believe a hospital should be able to turn away someone who does not or can not pay.

Health care, treatment of disease, therapy. All of these are not rights. They are services provided by someone else.

Now if a doctor wants to volunteer their time, or a group of people of community or heaven forbid a church, wants to organize some kind of treatment center at a discounted rate they can and are free to. But new medicine and research cost money. Tax payers and those who pay their bills should not be forced to not only cover that, but also the ones who abuse the ER to be seen or don’t pay.

Seriously, Why should I be forced to pay extra to cover someone else. when it will put me to a point where it could hurt me financially. [/quote]

Because, if you don’t, they might die.

Another way to look at it is that of you don’t, they will most assuredly TAKE it from you one way or another… because, people don’t like to die.

32

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics.[/quote]

Actually, it’s the other way around. Politics has no place in religion. Or education, or health care, or air line security, or defense, or building cars, etc…[/quote]

Stop being reasonable. [/quote]

What should the role of politics be, then?

Note: Honest question, not defending anything.[/quote]

Politics should have no role in the associations of individuals.[/quote]

That doesnt answer my question. What should politics have a role in?

33

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And as far as health care, yes I believe a hospital should be able to turn away someone who does not or can not pay.

Health care, treatment of disease, therapy. All of these are not rights. They are services provided by someone else.

Now if a doctor wants to volunteer their time, or a group of people of community or heaven forbid a church, wants to organize some kind of treatment center at a discounted rate they can and are free to. But new medicine and research cost money. Tax payers and those who pay their bills should not be forced to not only cover that, but also the ones who abuse the ER to be seen or don’t pay.

Seriously, Why should I be forced to pay extra to cover someone else. when it will put me to a point where it could hurt me financially. [/quote]

Because, if you don’t, they might die.

Another way to look at it is that of you don’t, they will most assuredly TAKE it from you one way or another… because, people don’t like to die.

[/quote]

Given the moral choice between stealing from one person to save another and allowing a person to die when they could have lived, which position do you take?

34

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And as far as health care, yes I believe a hospital should be able to turn away someone who does not or can not pay.

Health care, treatment of disease, therapy. All of these are not rights. They are services provided by someone else.

Now if a doctor wants to volunteer their time, or a group of people of community or heaven forbid a church, wants to organize some kind of treatment center at a discounted rate they can and are free to. But new medicine and research cost money. Tax payers and those who pay their bills should not be forced to not only cover that, but also the ones who abuse the ER to be seen or don’t pay.

Seriously, Why should I be forced to pay extra to cover someone else. when it will put me to a point where it could hurt me financially. [/quote]

Because, if you don’t, they might die.

Another way to look at it is that of you don’t, they will most assuredly TAKE it from you one way or another… because, people don’t like to die.

[/quote]

Given the moral choice between stealing from one person to save another and allowing a person to die when they could have lived, which position do you take?[/quote]

Stealing… any day.

And… that’s an ethical dilemma, not a moral choice.

35

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And as far as health care, yes I believe a hospital should be able to turn away someone who does not or can not pay.

Health care, treatment of disease, therapy. All of these are not rights. They are services provided by someone else.

Now if a doctor wants to volunteer their time, or a group of people of community or heaven forbid a church, wants to organize some kind of treatment center at a discounted rate they can and are free to. But new medicine and research cost money. Tax payers and those who pay their bills should not be forced to not only cover that, but also the ones who abuse the ER to be seen or don’t pay.

Seriously, Why should I be forced to pay extra to cover someone else. when it will put me to a point where it could hurt me financially. [/quote]

Because, if you don’t, they might die.

Another way to look at it is that of you don’t, they will most assuredly TAKE it from you one way or another… because, people don’t like to die.

[/quote]

Given the moral choice between stealing from one person to save another and allowing a person to die when they could have lived, which position do you take?[/quote]

Stealing… any day.

And… that’s an ethical dilemma, not a moral choice.
[/quote]

moralethicaldilemmachoice. :slight_smile:

36

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Stealing… any day.

And… that’s an ethical dilemma, not a moral choice.
[/quote]

stealing can lead to death, eventually people get sick of it.

You would take part of my life to preserve part of another, the argument you are providing is that the person who shows up at the hospital and cannot pay is worth more than the one who can pay. The person on welfare is worth more then the one working. and this goes on through all of your entitlement programs.

Teh person working essentially gives part of their life for the property they attain, whether financial, or other. That can be valued or weighed against a specific portion of their life. And you are saying it is ok to force them to give up part of their life for someone else. You are devaluing their life.

And then you wonder why people, who actually work and are responsible, so vehemently oppose taxation, entitlements and distribution of wealth. It is a form of involuntary servitude or slavery. But no you recognize it as good thing.

37

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
For those who argue against separation of church and state (or argue that it has simply gone too far), what changes specifically would you like to see?

What should be different?[/quote]

They want theocracy, and it must make special accommodations for Christianity and when it suits them, Judaism. Nothing else though.[/quote]

And, Mak is still upset he’s a Hindu.

Edit: Mak is still upset he can’t convince his mother to stop being a Hindu.

Edit: Edited for truth.

38

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
For those who argue against separation of church and state (or argue that it has simply gone too far), what changes specifically would you like to see?

What should be different?[/quote]

Did you read the link? The idea that our moral convictions should not be upheld even in public office. That because we’re in charge of others, we should not impress upon them our morals.

Which doesn’t make sense the reason why you were brought into office, is because of your moral convictions. Makes zero sense.

39

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I’m all for people practicing their religion freely but I don’t think it has place in politics. It just seems that religion in politics slows down progress as in the case of stem cell research or the allows for a man like Scott Roeder to use the pathetic argument “I wanted to save the children” in defending his cold blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller.

By allowing religion into politics it forces those who don’t follow or believe to be subject to those religious laws which isn’t fair. If you don’t believe in premarital sex - fine don’t have it - but don’t tell other people they can’t :)[/quote]

What kind…oh yes, Straw-man fallacy. Catholics don’t have a problem with stem cell research, they have a problem of killing children to do so. And, even though in no uncertain terms killing a innocent human is wrong, the fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has had no improvements. Compare that adult stem cell research and they have around 50 cures using stem cells. And, moral convictions would have said Scott Roeder is wrong.

Oh, it’s not fair to act morally? Interesting, next time someone tries to kill you, I’m sure you’ll be happy because at least those Christians are imposing their moral laws on us.

40

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Bullmoose33 wrote:
Kennedy had the right idea.[/quote]

You mean the magic book about men making large bodies of water suddenly defy all known laws of physics SHOULDNT be what our entire legal system is based on?

How dare you. You’ll be set on fire for all eternity when you die - lets hope preying on your fear of the unknown will terrorize you to my way of thinking![/quote]You just may get it one day, but not today.
[/quote]

You are the worst condescending asshole on T-Nation. Never ask me what problem I have with christians, ever.[/quote]

Says the man that miss portrays the beliefs of a Senator and a President.[/quote]

Christians dont believe a man parted a sea by raising a staff?[/quote]

No, they believe God did through Moses and that he had to use a staff in order to do it. So do Jews and Muslims. But, we don’t believe in magic, a magic book, and what does parting a sea have to do with the fact that our moral laws are perfect. [/quote]

Making giant body of water defy all known laws of physics = magic
[/quote]

No, magic is the idea of being able to control the universe through superstitious rituals. Jews, nor Christians, nor Muslims believe in magic.

Oh, so now you’re a fundamentalist Christian. Interesting, because neither the Jews, nor Christians take the creation story as such.

Obviously you fail to not only understand magic, but also Abrahamic religions. You’re a bigot.

Bigot.

Does Natural Law come from the Bible? And, you’re a bigot.

[quote]
But, like all the other believers-in-nonsense, you stomp your feet and yell “THE BIBLE IS INERRANT, OUR MORALS ARE PERFECT, WE ARE RIGHT”, without any reason, proof, or rational beyond your own ‘faith’, which is your own personal choice.

What absurdities you choose to believe in (for no reason other than you choose to) should not, in any-fucking-way, affect the laws of the country I live in.[/quote]

Wow, you’re more of a bigot than I thought. Do you hate black people, too?