Separation of Church and State

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Straw man much?

Look, don’t be dense. I didn’t say it was a good thing. I only (in a rather obtuse way) suggested that it was a necessary thing.

I know it sucks, but people don’t like watching other people live while they run the risk of dying. So, if society doesn’t figure out how to provide for the percentage of the population that can’t take care of themselves, these people will take society’s shit without asking. It’s happening right now, in emergency rooms all over the country, and the price of that debacle is almost exactly twice what it would cost us just to provide them with healthcare in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a work-fare advocate, not a welfare advocate. But, when the discussion is reduced to the myopic realm of solipsistic, individual rights, we can’t even get to such useful topics… witness the last 25 years of public discourse on the topic.

42

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

well depends what you mean, they can actually do alot with the cord cells and what is termed menstrual cells also.

I have actually worked differentiating these cells and growing tissues and organs from them.

but still does not require the harming of innocent life.

43

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“Perfect moral laws” = laws derived from an ancient magic book filled with impossible tales which have NEVER been duplicated or confirmed EVER, saying that our morals come from a powerful man up in the sky no one has ever been able to prove exists.

Brother Chris, ever wonder why NONE of the ‘miracles’ in the bible happen today? Ever wonder why we never see a video or documentary of someone performing miracles? Did God suddenly stop giving people the ability to speak to animals or fly?

Or maybe, just maybe, none of that shit ever happened and your faith is based on legend and myth rather than historical fact?

Start doing logical backflips to explain why your god was SO heavily involved with humanity in the bible, why god talked directly to so many people and passed stone tablets down and set bushes on fire, but ever since humanity developed a method of testing the validity of statements, no such accounts have ever been confirmed.

“Uh, uh, god sent his son and he died so, um, like, god just said whatever after that. He just decided to stop intervening as egregiously, thats why you read about so many big miracles in the bible and none have happened since global communication became possible!”

That, or your bible is full of lies and nonsense.

Guess you’ll have to tell me I’ll be punished when I die or your life is filled with joy and peace, right?[/quote]

I don’t know what will happen to you when you die, but I know God loves you. And, even though I do have joy and peace, you obviously don’t.

Why don’t you tell us what your actual problem with Christianity, because in your straw man arguments about why Catholics shouldn’t follow their moral convictions while in public office, you have yet to get anything correct.

44

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Straw man much?

Look, don’t be dense. I didn’t say it was a good thing. I only (in a rather obtuse way) suggested that it was a necessary thing.

I know it sucks, but people don’t like watching other people live while they run the risk of dying. So, if society doesn’t figure out how to provide for the percentage of the population that can’t take care of themselves, these people will take society’s shit without asking. It’s happening right now, in emergency rooms all over the country, and the price of that debacle is almost exactly twice what it would cost us just to provide them with healthcare in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a work-fare advocate, not a welfare advocate. But, when the discussion is reduced to the myopic realm of solipsistic, individual rights, we can’t even get to such useful topics… witness the last 25 years of public discourse on the topic.
[/quote]

the only reason people can steal from an ER is because the hospitals are legally liable to treat them.

I think people should have to pay for what they use.

If bad debt’s became a criminal offense, it would reduce some abuse. I know not many others would go along with the allowing hospitals to turn away those without means of paying, but there are others ways to ensure people have to be accountable for their actions.

Treat an unpaid bill as it is, stealing. make it a criminal offense.

45

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Stupid bigot.[/quote]

Says the biggest bigot in town.

46

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

You have never heard, okay. Thanks, omnipresent didn’t know you had that gene.

[quote]
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]

Actually I don’t bash homos and I don’t bash infidelity. I, however, do point out that both are immoral. However, the fact remains that things such as HIV are more rampant in gays. So, the argument is two sided, a principled argument against acting out one’s homosexuality and one is a pragmatic argument against acting out.

Just like Catholics have a principled argument against contraception and a pragmatic argument.

47

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The way I see it is that the intent of politics is to coerce us into doing stuff we don’t want to or to prevent us from doing stuff that comes naturally.

The end result of politics is less freedom.

48

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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 Buddhist.

Edit: Mak is still upset he can’t convince his mother to stop being a Buddhist.[/quote]

Hindu actually, and I don’t care, as she doesn’t force her views on anyone else.

Also, I’d appreciate you cunts leaving my mother out of this.

49

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

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.[/quote]

I did read the link. What morals, in your opinion, should be impressed upon others?
I don’t want to go off on assumptions which is why I am asking.

50

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

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.[/quote]

I did read the link. What morals, in your opinion, should be impressed upon others?
I don’t want to go off on assumptions which is why I am asking.[/quote]

Natural Law.

51

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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 Buddhist.

Edit: Mak is still upset he can’t convince his mother to stop being a Buddhist.[/quote]

Hindu actually, and I don’t care, as she doesn’t force her views on anyone else.

Also, I’d appreciate you cunts leaving my mother out of this.[/quote]

Then, by all means leave my mother, the holy Church, out of this. And, especially her truths. Since, you obviously have no grasp of what she actually teaches.

52

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The way I see it is that the intent of politics is to coerce us into doing stuff we don’t want to or to prevent us from doing stuff that comes naturally.

The end result of politics is less freedom.
[/quote]

I have no dictionary on me, so this would be my definition on politics based on my perceptions of social issues. So I am not stating a fact, but my opinion. ( just saying so we are clare ).

First let split the term in two:

1, materialistic-politics: It refers to the struggle between opposing economical interrests in society, also called classwarfare. The end goal for the actours are more power of the material resources of society.

2, idealistic-politics: It refers to the struggle between opposing idealistical interrests in society. example: christian-moralists vs secular-moralists or collectivists vs individualists. The end goal of the actours are to reshape society after theire ideology.

Often this two political spheres are mixed. In the capitalist context the materialist struggle of the working class have been justifed trough collectivist ideas. The materialist struggle of the upperclass have been justifed trough individualistic ideas. There are religious and seculars on both sides, so this issues are more cultural dependent than class dependent.

The political battle ground in the modern day west have been the parliaments/senates/congresses. This have historically over time redused the violent nature of the different political struggles, but in desperate times the democratic code have been put aside. This can happen today or in the future if the circumstances are right( wrong we might say haha ).

When somebody here says that religion should not be a part of politics they should be a bit more specific. It can come off a bit undemocratic. If you mean it like: I wish that nobody where religious, then its ok. Its the same as a socialist said, I whis nobody where pro-capitalist. But from go from there to want to deny political actours to fight for theire ideas or theire material-cause are not our bussines in a democracy. If a country has a large prosent of religious people in theire parliament/congress/senat, then it probably are because religion is part of the social and cultural backdrop of that society, Its expected. It is the same as haveing a large prosent of farmers in the parliament/senate/congress in a country with a large agro-cultural-sector. I myself dont like it when people justify rightwing policy based on religion, but I would never vote for a law wich denied the religious right to sign up for election and organize political groups.

53

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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 Buddhist.

Edit: Mak is still upset he can’t convince his mother to stop being a Buddhist.[/quote]

Hindu actually, and I don’t care, as she doesn’t force her views on anyone else.

Also, I’d appreciate you cunts leaving my mother out of this.[/quote]

Then, by all means leave my mother, the holy Church, out of this. And, especially her truths. Since, you obviously have no grasp of what she actually teaches.[/quote]

Sky fairy mother =/= Biological Mother.

Seriously, fuck off with the cracks about my mother unless you want long rants about how your parents abused you as a child.

54

very interesting debate! I love these topics without end!!
I think no matter what some people are always going to have/believe in religion while others are going to think its all b.s. regardless that large number of people who DO believe in some sort of religious moral law are going to influence the government in some way or another it can’t be avoided.

Politics (the process of debate/discussion to determine policies) is necessary to decide how much of that religious influence should be allowed to affect policy. There are good things in religion that should certainly be reflected in our laws - don’t kill, steal and so on however that doesn’t mean the government should always follow religious law. I mean the pope only recently gave an okay to condoms yet the government has encouraged its use for decades.

This is the great thing about democracy - the pope isn’t king and the bible isn’t the constitution. Laws have to be created and modernized based on the current needs of society.

But on a whole other point I just find it somewhat hypocritical that the religious right who tend to argue for more religious influence on policy argue against polices that would help the poor… i mean isn’t that homeboy jesus was all about? slightly confused? I mean if Jesus was alive he would totally be a socialist lol

55

[quote]AllieD wrote:
But on a whole other point I just find it somewhat hypocritical that the religious right who tend to argue for more religious influence on policy argue against polices that would help the poor… i mean isn’t that homeboy jesus was all about? slightly confused? I mean if Jesus was alive he would totally be a socialist lol[/quote]

56

[quote]AllieD wrote:

But on a whole other point I just find it somewhat hypocritical that the religious right who tend to argue for more religious influence on policy argue against polices that would help the poor… i mean isn’t that homeboy jesus was all about? slightly confused? I mean if Jesus was alive he would totally be a socialist lol[/quote]

57

Christians should actually practice communism. CHRISTIANS SHOULD… voluntarily… inside the church. Not through secular government.
The second chapter of the acts of the apostles vv42-47 ESV:

58

For da tirib

59

[quote]AllieD wrote:
I mean the pope only recently gave an okay to condoms
[/quote]

The Pope never gave an okay to condoms.

60

Not quite true on both sides.

Pope says condom use justifia"ble at times

Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that condoms can be justified for male prostitutes seeking to stop the spread of HIV.

The statement marks a stunning turnaround for a church that has long opposed condoms and a pontiff who has blamed them for making the AIDS crisis worse."

source: