Political Crossfire Forums

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

I have been a faithful protestant my entire life, and when christianity began surfacing on the conservatives arguments, I got a little confused. God made us with minds and bodies controllable only by ourselves and occasionally by divine inspiration. He gave us our free wills. The Bible gives a set of laws a good Christian lives by, but there is nothing in the Bible about imposing those rules on others.
God gave all peoples their lives as their own, he gave them their free will, what the hell gives a secular government the right to take that away?

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

I am not sure I understand the question. Could you be more specific?

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

For those of you who justify any argument with Christian reasoning (ex: Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc). Why do you feel it is either the right or the responsibility of a religiously impartial governing body to take away the choice between a good life and a bad life even God left to humans?

And while I'm asking that, I have another question. For those who say life begins at conception: The difference between a human and an animal is a thinking, feeling conscious. A fetus has no conscious until shortly before birth. So if a life with rights begins before consciousness, then is it not also right to ban hunting, and to declare stepping on ants a felony?

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5357 Location: Boston, MA

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: For those of you who justify any argument with Christian reasoning (ex: Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc). Why do you feel it is either the right or the responsibility of a religiously impartial governing body to take away the choice between a good life and a bad life even God left to humans?

And while I'm asking that, I have another question. For those who say life begins at conception: The difference between a human and an animal is a thinking, feeling conscious. A fetus has no conscious until shortly before birth. So if a life with rights begins before consciousness, then is it not also right to ban hunting, and to declare stepping on ants a felony?

While I participate extensivly in the religion threads I do not think it is necessary to inject religion into the abortion debate.

Your logic with regard to conciousness would also mean that abortion should be legal up to and actully after birth since there is virtually not difference in the thinking ability of a fetus at 7 months and 2 or 3 month old infant.

Or for that matter why do we spend thousands of dollars trying to save brain injury victims who are unconcious and have less than a 50/50 chance of recovery yet in the case of an otherwise healthy developing human being where we know the likelyhood conciousness is virtually a guarentee, there is NO responsibility to maintain life? How do you justify that position?

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: For those of you who justify any argument with Christian reasoning (ex: Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc). Why do you feel it is either the right or the responsibility of a religiously impartial governing body to take away the choice between a good life and a bad life even God left to humans?

Well, that one boils down to the separation of church and state. We vote for our governing officials, and since most of us are religious, it is near impossible to keep religion out of government. See, we can vote for people to write laws that coincide with our religious beliefs, and as long as they dont make a law that says that that religion is the governing one, then you have separation of church and state.

To say that religion cannot exist in governmental decisions, is to say that nobody in government can exercise their own freedom of religion. Therefore, that is to say that nobody in government can have any religion whatsoever, you see? That is NOT the separation of church and state.

The government is made up to SERVE the PEOPLE. The people do not serve the government, they serve US.

So you see, with the freedom of speech, and religion, religion CAN exist in government and affect law making, just as long as lawmaking doesnt affect religion.

To put is a little extra clearly:

Religion can be brought into government by the people. After all, the government is made up by the people, since the people, are in effect, the voters. The officials themselves were not always officials. They were once the voters.

Now, if the government was to make laws that affected religion, and I ask you to read this clearly, read it twice if you must, that would be unconstitutional.

We have free will, but we live in a society where the people vote. Therefore the people make the laws. The people are welcome to write letters and let the government know whats best, whether their religion declares it that way or not, and that is allowed. Its our freedom of speech. Since the government is here to SERVE us, they must listen to the majority.

Now. The majority could constantly ask that a particular religion become a national one, but that will not make it so. It will only make the values of that religion a more nationally legislated thing. The religion itself cant be pushed from legislation into the lives of Citizens, but as long as the majority of voters have a common idea regarding religion, then that religion will affect legislation.

Quote: And while I'm asking that, I have another question. For those who say life begins at conception: The difference between a human and an animal is a thinking, feeling conscious. A fetus has no conscious until shortly before birth. So if a life with rights begins before consciousness, then is it not also right to ban hunting, and to declare stepping on ants a felony?

We really dont know much about a fetuses consciousness. We DO know its is alive at conception. To say any given point that a fetus has or does not have consciousness, is to pretend to be psychic, or to know whats going on in the mind of a fetus.

The bible says that we get our soul when we take our first breath.

I am working with Jehovas Witnesses on all this right now, but they say that abortion is against the word of God. The reason, I think, it because it takes away the authority of God. God wants authority in all matters, and when we sin, and especially when we kill, we take away his authority, his plans. We overstep our bounds, so to speak.

God doesnt want anyone to suffer. Him allowing us to make mistakes, does not mean he wants us to cause suffering and pain. He wants us to follow his word, and be reborn (someday) into the kingdom of Heaven (Earth when it is paradise) Remember, God is the Father, and like any father, he ALLOWS us to make mistakes, but he doesnt like the mistakes we make. Thats why he gave Jesus up for us to be cleansed of our Sinful ways, so we can have hope.

God (Jehovah) is a pure God. He is our Father, and he wants only good things, and he wants us to be gratuitous to him and glorify him.

Jesus, though, said that Satan rules the Earth. He has ever since the creation of Adam and Eve.

So, Jehovah is the creator, the Father, but Satan is the ruler, the temptor. It is very difficult, sometimes, to see what is a temptation and what is not. Thats why the Bible is such a great source for answers. The bible, the whole Bible, is the word of God, straight from the mouth of Him.

So, if the Bible says its okay, its okay, because thats Gods word. If God says its not okay, the bible will say so, too. :-D

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

I understand your ideas, and have said the same thing to atheist friends of mine many times. I believe that religion will affect your judgement in every aspect of your life. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, Kuwait decides that OPEC could fetch better prices if it boycotted the US for a year. It comes down to whether we invade to avoid a massive economy collaps and a voter takes a look at Matthew 5:9, and reads "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God". They think to themself, hmm, maybe we could look for alternative sources of energy, instead.

It is NOT acceptable to impose one's beliefs upon another, that is an infringement upon freedom. Laws are created to protect the citizens from others around us. A law must be made to punish murderers, or murder would occur whenever an argument broke out. There are laws against drug use because it can induce reckless behavior and the possible injury of others. There are many laws against rape, or it would happen 100 times as often. These are laws to protect the citizen. A ban on gay marriage or abortion protects no voting citizen, and is therefore imposing that voter's views on another. Religious or not, that is an infringement upon the freedom of those who do not share those beliefs.

Your example of God as the Father or the authority is an excellent example. A father never wishes a child to go against his wishes. The child must make those mistakes to learn from them. Punishment will reinforce those lessons. We are the siblings in the family of Christ. The father of children would never condone one child enforcing the father's laws upon another sibling, it is not their place to do so. The father will punish when he sees fit, and he will allow mistakes when he sees fit. To punish sinners ourselves is a much greater infringement on God's plan than the sinning itself.

Freedom in a nation will never be freedom before it is freedom for every citizen within that nation. A citizen with complete power, imposing his own values upon all others has his freedom, but he is one among 300 million.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: I understand your ideas, and have said the same thing to atheist friends of mine many times. I believe that religion will affect your judgement in every aspect of your life. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, Kuwait decides that OPEC could fetch better prices if it boycotted the US for a year. It comes down to whether we invade to avoid a massive economy collaps and a voter takes a look at Matthew 5:9, and reads "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God". They think to themself, hmm, maybe we could look for alternative sources of energy, instead.

i dont believe that. God is a great believer of justice. How else to make peace than wage war? Without wars, there is no peace.

Quote: It is NOT acceptable to impose one's beliefs upon another, that is an infringement upon freedom. Laws are created to protect the citizens from others around us. A law must be made to punish murderers, or murder would occur whenever an argument broke out. There are laws against drug use because it can induce reckless behavior and the possible injury of others. There are many laws against rape, or it would happen 100 times as often. These are laws to protect the citizen. A ban on gay marriage or abortion protects no voting citizen, and is therefore imposing that voter's views on another. Religious or not, that is an infringement upon the freedom of those who do not share those beliefs.

abortion does kill, and "thou shalt not kill".. I can quote many bible verses besides this one that supports this, but the basis is not what the human law says, for the majority, it is what the religious believe, and that is where the law is derived. God makes all laws, or else why wouldnt it be okay to kill a grown person? Because Thou shalt not kill. A man cannot make a law for another man. Only God can. This is proven time and time again. God doesnt want women to be raped. God doesnt want woman to have sex before marriage. God doesnt want gay marriage to happen.. So it all boils down to majority votes, and since the majority of the WORLD is religious (like 87% or something) then the rules are made by the majority. If the majority follows the word of God, then the rules will follow His word, in turn.

Quote: Your example of God as the Father or the authority is an excellent example. A father never wishes a child to go against his wishes. The child must make those mistakes to learn from them. Punishment will reinforce those lessons. We are the siblings in the family of Christ. The father of children would never condone one child enforcing the father's laws upon another sibling, it is not their place to do so. The father will punish when he sees fit, and he will allow mistakes when he sees fit. To punish sinners ourselves is a much greater infringement on God's plan than the sinning itself.

Well, I am still getting into that with the Jehovas Witnesses, but from what I gather, God doesnt really punish anyone. He allows bad things to happen all the time, but he wouldnt cause them, being pure and free from all that hatefulness. To say that God causes problems is to put God on trial. He doesnt like being put on trial, so you shouldnt say that.

Quote: Freedom in a nation will never be freedom before it is freedom for every citizen within that nation. A citizen with complete power, imposing his own values upon all others has his freedom, but he is one among 300 million.

Actually, I reckon youre talking about Bush??? Well, George Bush has his problems, I know, but hes not forcing religion or controlling religion. He is allowed to make decisions based on his values. He represents the people who voted for him. The majority.
Therefore, he actually represents religious people. If most people were not religious, he wouldnt have been voted for. An atheist would have been elected.

George Bush doesnt have complete power, and as long as he doesnt try to make Christianity a national religion, he is free to exercise his religious beliefs in office, even if you dont like them. Hes not imposing his RELIGION on you, he is only exercising his religious values on you. Now, had he become president by royal birth, or something, like a king, then he wouldnt have been voted for, and he wouldnt be representing the majority. Even if we dont like him that much, we did vote for him, so we kinda have to deal with him for a little while longer.

Anyways, I dont think you get the separation of church and state. the church can control the law, but the law cant control the church. Thats all there is to it.

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

Sailor Moon wrote: i dont believe that. God is a great believer of justice. How else to make peace than wage war? Without wars, there is no peace.
So you're saying you would support a war for a mere economical profit, when no insult had been directed and no strike been made against us? In the quest for oil, alternative sources are the only sources that can be maintained indefinitely. A war over oil would never be successful in the long run.

Why would war be the only answer, or why is it just? It is their product to do with what they like, and our support of our own free market makes us hypocrits if we can't support it on a world stage. We would not have been wronged in any way if such an act was made. An invasion over a mere commodity is not justice, and it will never bring peace in the long run, it will only result in temporary domination of a single nation over many other, weaker ones. That is surely not God's idea of justice.

Sailor Moon wrote: God makes all laws, or else why wouldnt it be okay to kill a grown person? Because Thou shalt not kill.
I sincerely hope that is not a suggestion that you only oppose murder because it is opposed by God.

Sailor Moon wrote: A man cannot make a law for another man. Only God can.
A man can certainly make a law over another man. If you had done your homework, you would know that present day Europe is a majority atheist, and claim Christianity only in lineage, not by practice, yet their governments are far more communist than ours. It is man's right to make restrictions to protect himself from a stronger foe if that foe has no just cause for aggression. I see nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not breach the speed of 65 miles per hour upon interstate highways" yet a removal of speeding laws cannot be what you're advocating. There is nothing about corporate fraud, insider trading, money laundering, stockholder's loyalty, building restrictions, air-trafficking controls, the construction of nuclear facilities by private citizens, or a host of other surely justified laws. To return to the family metaphor, a child is justified in demanding that his brother not leave his clothes strewn within the younger childs room, or break the younger child's toys.

A government's rights to inhibit action extend only so far as to prevent any one citizen from harming another. Past that, a government's power is surely over-extended, and must be checked.

Sailor Moon wrote: To say that God causes problems is to put God on trial. He doesnt like being put on trial, so you shouldnt say that.
Maybe I missed something there, but I never suggested that God caused problems. He allows problems to run the course as allowed by other people, He does not restric human action outside of free will.

And I was not talking about Bush, it was a metaphorical leader. I exagerated the situation to make clear my meaning.

Also: Majority?!?!

He does not hold the majority, he holds a small minority, which happens to be a majority of voting peoples. Many of those peoples who would vote for a liberal candidate are compramised by the extreme challenges they face in every day life.

Majority has nothing to do with freedom. A majority is never justified in restricting the rights of the minority beyond their will. A majority system is used because it was assumed by the founding fathers that any movement that restricted rights beyond reasonable bounds would never gain the support of the majority. Just because our current political system gives the majority the power to inhibit the rights of the minority, it will never JUSTLY do so.

It all comes back to the fact that abortion does not harm the ones that support the anti-abortion laws. It harms a fetus, that, if not allowed to be abortioned, would grow up in an unhappy and ill-equipped household. The influence of parents who support abortion would surely result in the child's eventual support of abortion, and therefore, any abortioned baby would eventually grow up to support the thing that it was "protected" from.

Gay marriage cannot, in any way, harm those who support anti-gay laws. In all likelihood, those gays you prevented from marrying eachother would not want to live next to a bigot such as that.

It is therefore, not imposing secular law upon others, but religious BELIEF. There is a word for inhibiting and controlling belief, and we as a country have fought it for five decades. We are a country founded upon the ideas of utmost social libertarianism, and yet now, we are in jeapordy of losing that dream to communists.

I understand seperation of the church and state. The state can be influenced by the church, but cannot enforce church beliefs on others through the state, because that, in turn, is the state controlling a church seperate from the one that originally controlled it.

Just in case that was a little roundabout, I mean that your belief is that it is the churches right to influence other religions through the government, which is the exact opposite of the truth.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: i dont believe that. God is a great believer of justice. How else to make peace than wage war? Without wars, there is no peace.
So you're saying you would support a war for a mere economical profit, when no insult had been directed and no strike been made against us? In the quest for oil, alternative sources are the only sources that can be maintained indefinitely. A war over oil would never be successful in the long run.

You were referring to war in general. And no, I dont agree with the war on Iraq. I can understand, though, why Iraq fights back so hard. Yes I agree that this is a war for oil, and no I dont agree with waging war for personal, financial, or political gain. The only time war is okay is when it brings justice to wrongdoers.

Quote: Why would war be the only answer, or why is it just? It is their product to do with what they like, and our support of our own free market makes us hypocrits if we can't support it on a world stage. We would not have been wronged in any way if such an act was made. An invasion over a mere commodity is not justice, and it will never bring peace in the long run, it will only result in temporary domination of a single nation over many other, weaker ones. That is surely not God's idea of justice.

It is only just when it is an act of preserving justice for people, human rights..

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: God makes all laws, or else why wouldnt it be okay to kill a grown person? Because Thou shalt not kill.
I sincerely hope that is not a suggestion that you only oppose murder because it is opposed by God.

I dont really know why I oppose murder, in the grand scheme of things. I figure that if Jesus spoke the word of God to a bunch of people and told them that it was wrong, then they realised it was wrong, and it stuck. I believe that murdering someone is taking away the authority of God.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: A man cannot make a law for another man. Only God can.
A man can certainly make a law over another man. If you had done your homework, you would know that present day Europe is a majority atheist, and claim Christianity only in lineage, not by practice, yet their governments are far more communist than ours. It is man's right to make restrictions to protect himself from a stronger foe if that foe has no just cause for aggression. I see nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not breach the speed of 65 miles per hour upon interstate highways" yet a removal of speeding laws cannot be what you're advocating. There is nothing about corporate fraud, insider trading, money laundering, stockholder's loyalty, building restrictions, air-trafficking controls, the construction of nuclear facilities by private citizens, or a host of other surely justified laws. To return to the family metaphor, a child is justified in demanding that his brother not leave his clothes strewn within the younger childs room, or break the younger child's toys.

A government's rights to inhibit action extend only so far as to prevent any one citizen from harming another. Past that, a government's power is surely over-extended, and must be checked.

1- it is not the governments job to protect us... it is our responsibility, and free will that protects us

2- no matter how much of a slave state you advocate for, people will not be governed. People, like you said, have free will, and the ability to make their own decisions. In a democracy, people vote for rules and representatives. We are not a governed people. We are the governing, because we vote. So a law cannot be made without a persons consent, or govern over another mans free will, at least in the majority. Thats why we vote. Everything else is tyranny, tyranny leads to injustice, and inhumane treatment (like you said, you expect the government to protect you, and sorry- but it just cannot) which leads to war, which ends up leading to the revokation of the tyranny, and the abusive laws, turning it back to free will. The best we can do with abortion is to not give fetuses rights, explicitly, which would lead to the mass imprisonment of millions of women.
Quote:
Sailor Moon wrote: To say that God causes problems is to put God on trial. He doesnt like being put on trial, so you shouldnt say that.
Maybe I missed something there, but I never suggested that God caused problems. He allows problems to run the course as allowed by other people, He does not restric human action outside of free will.

And I was not talking about Bush, it was a metaphorical leader. I exagerated the situation to make clear my meaning.

Also: Majority?!?!

He does not hold the majority, he holds a small minority, which happens to be a majority of voting peoples. Many of those peoples who would vote for a liberal candidate are compramised by the extreme challenges they face in every day life.

What????????? OMG.. now the people who can but dont vote are demanding a voice??? Oh for crying out loud...

Quote: Majority has nothing to do with freedom. A majority is never justified in restricting the rights of the minority beyond their will. A majority system is used because it was assumed by the founding fathers that any movement that restricted rights beyond reasonable bounds would never gain the support of the majority. Just because our current political system gives the majority the power to inhibit the rights of the minority, it will never JUSTLY do so.

Same goes with abortion. Its not okay to have legal abortion, by your own logic.

Quote: It all comes back to the fact that abortion does not harm the ones that support the anti-abortion laws. It harms a fetus, that, if not allowed to be abortioned, would grow up in an unhappy and ill-equipped household. The influence of parents who support abortion would surely result in the child's eventual support of abortion, and therefore, any abortioned baby would eventually grow up to support the thing that it was "protected" from.

That is entirely speculative, and MOOT. And actually, if someone really wanted an abortion, there are plenty of ways to have one without going to jail. PLUS, if pro lifers just left abortion legal for another, say 20 years, there would be no pro abortionists to speak of, and the entire subject would become nill. Your own logic dictates that, also.

Quote: Gay marriage cannot, in any way, harm those who support anti-gay laws. In all likelihood, those gays you prevented from marrying eachother would not want to live next to a bigot such as that.

I personally dont care one way or another. Yes it is a personal choice. It DOES affect the gays, though. I think that the people who are very much against it, ARE trying to protect the homos from escaping the Kingdom of Heaven. When we die, we are dead. It takes a massive ressurection to bring about the kingdom of heaven, and it is said "the meek shall rule the earth". So as much as people might think that its oppressive, its really a way of saving people from eternal death as opposed to eternal life, a much more desirable option.
Quote:
It is therefore, not imposing secular law upon others, but religious BELIEF. There is a word for inhibiting and controlling belief, and we as a country have fought it for five decades. We are a country founded upon the ideas of utmost social libertarianism, and yet now, we are in jeapordy of losing that dream to communists.

We have been in that haphazardous posititon for many years now. Even MLK was a bit of a commie. Do some research. Do a search "Martin Luther King" "Communist", you'll see. His best friends were commies. He even said he was a communist at one time or another.

Quote: I understand seperation of the church and state. The state can be influenced by the church, but cannot enforce church beliefs on others through the state, because that, in turn, is the state controlling a church seperate from the one that originally controlled it.

Just in case that was a little roundabout, I mean that your belief is that it is the churches right to influence other religions through the government, which is the exact opposite of the truth.

You are so wrong. I will quote Thomas Jefferson, the one who wrote the Constitution, and you can see for yourself:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government."

-Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

---And in case you hav any questions on that, just remember this. With the freedom of religion comes the freedom of speech. All of that was made clear in the first amendment. So, in other words, while the church can run the government, the government cannot run the church. That does not mean, in any way, that religious principles should be kept out of lawmaking. It just means that laws may not rule religious principles.

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

Sailor Moon wrote:
You are so wrong. I will quote Thomas Jefferson, the one who wrote the Constitution, and you can see for yourself:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government."
You seem to have missed my point. The church has the right to influence secular politics through the belief of its followers. It does not have the right to impose laws that are against the religious and/or earthly belief of those who will be governed by that law. Because for the church to influence the state, the idea passes through that wall, but once in government, it has no right to pass back through that wall to influence the beliefs of others who do not share in the original, non-secular belief. I can see that you will respond that once in the government, all is secular and has every right to manifest itself as nation-wide laws. You refuse to concede my point, and I will forever refuse to agree with yours.

Sailor Moon wrote: Same goes with abortion. Its not okay to have legal abortion, by your own logic.
No, there is a very large difference. The legalization and illegalization are completely different things, in belief and otherwise. When you illegalize something, you are enforcing the belief that it is wrong upon ever citizen, whether they personally believe it is wrong or not. To legalize something, the sector that believes that action to be wrong are in no way obligated to take part in that act. Therefore, if an action is legalized, all sides may do as they choose. If an action is illegalized, all sides must do as the majority chose. The legalization of an action in no way INHIBITS the acts of those who believe it to be wrong. Ever.

Sailor Moon wrote: PLUS, if pro lifers just left abortion legal for another, say 20 years, there would be no pro abortionists to speak of, and the entire subject would become nill. Your own logic dictates that, also.
You have only arrived at the conclusion because you gave the matter only shallow thought. The right to have an abortion does not force one to. The overwhelming majority of couples that support legal abortion would not choose to have one because their child was concieved of knowingly and when the couple was confident in their ability to raise the child.

Sailor Moon wrote:
What????????? OMG.. now the people who can but dont vote are demanding a voice??? Oh for crying out loud...
I am not demanding they be given a voice, I am merely reminding you that this "majority" you are so proud of is actually only 60 million people in a nation of 300 million. It is true that a large majority of the people that don't vote would vote liberal if they did. For most, however, the countries politics is so concentrated among the wealthy and the right, (yes, on a world stage even Kerry is more conservative that 3/4 of the population) that a vote either way will not pay off for them. They fight each day to survive in a country where a multi-billionaire recieves more tax breaks than a small business owner attempting to rise out of poverty.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
You are so wrong. I will quote Thomas Jefferson, the one who wrote the Constitution, and you can see for yourself:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government."
You seem to have missed my point. The church has the right to influence secular politics through the belief of its followers. It does not have the right to impose laws that are against the religious and/or earthly belief of those who will be governed by that law. Because for the church to influence the state, the idea passes through that wall, but once in government, it has no right to pass back through that wall to influence the beliefs of others who do not share in the original, non-secular belief. I can see that you will respond that once in the government, all is secular and has every right to manifest itself as nation-wide laws. You refuse to concede my point, and I will forever refuse to agree with yours.

Fine, I dont care. Youre wrong.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Same goes with abortion. Its not okay to have legal abortion, by your own logic.
No, there is a very large difference. The legalization and illegalization are completely different things, in belief and otherwise. When you illegalize something, you are enforcing the belief that it is wrong upon ever citizen, whether they personally believe it is wrong or not. To legalize something, the sector that believes that action to be wrong are in no way obligated to take part in that act. Therefore, if an action is legalized, all sides may do as they choose. If an action is illegalized, all sides must do as the majority chose. The legalization of an action in no way INHIBITS the acts of those who believe it to be wrong. Ever.

That is true. But if "some" people thought that murdering grown ups was "okay" should we make murder legal? Of course not...

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: PLUS, if pro lifers just left abortion legal for another, say 20 years, there would be no pro abortionists to speak of, and the entire subject would become nill. Your own logic dictates that, also.
You have only arrived at the conclusion because you gave the matter only shallow thought. The right to have an abortion does not force one to. The overwhelming majority of couples that support legal abortion would not choose to have one because their child was concieved of knowingly and when the couple was confident in their ability to raise the child.

bulls**t. I know lots of people who had "surprise" pregnancies, and are pro life. I have eaten ramen noodles, and hot dogs every day with my own son, for several months, just to stay alive. That is alot more food than some people get in a week! THEY SURVIVE TOO! So dont give me this "Oh its only the people who planned their pregnancies that are pro life" baloney with me! It is definately not. Norma Mc Corvey herself is Pro Life, so is Bernard Nathanson!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30098

http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~nmacklin/roenomore/realstory.html

Furthermore, I HAVE HAD AN ABORTION!
So dont tell me you have any idea where I am coming from. As a MAN, you will never truly understand how bad abortion is! Furthermore, when you go in to have an assisted abortion, you CANT change your mind. 5 minutes, and your kid is dead. So if you change your mind, thats just too friggin bad. I can go stand on a high dive, and still get back down. I can eat a pineapple, and change my mind. When there is money and a doctor making money involved, there is no choice, once they get you on the table, so dont give me that s**t.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote:
What????????? OMG.. now the people who can but dont vote are demanding a voice??? Oh for crying out loud...
I am not demanding they be given a voice, I am merely reminding you that this "majority" you are so proud of is actually only 60 million people in a nation of 300 million. It is true that a large majority of the people that don't vote would vote liberal if they did. For most, however, the countries politics is so concentrated among the wealthy and the right, (yes, on a world stage even Kerry is more conservative that 3/4 of the population) that a vote either way will not pay off for them. They fight each day to survive in a country where a multi-billionaire recieves more tax breaks than a small business owner attempting to rise out of poverty.

I am not going to sit here and argue about this with you. I am so sick of bleeding heart liberals who dont even vote, and yet complain when they dont get their way!!! I am also not a conservative, either, buddy so dont go there, either.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Gilbert1908 wrote: Your logic with regard to conciousness would also mean that abortion should be legal up to and actully after birth since there is virtually not difference in the thinking ability of a fetus at 7 months and 2 or 3 month old infant. Sure there is a difference. Why do you see a need to make false claims about medical science to make your argument?

Quote: Or for that matter why do we spend thousands of dollars trying to save brain injury victims who are unconcious and have less than a 50/50 chance of recovery yet in the case of an otherwise healthy developing human being where we know the likelyhood conciousness is virtually a guarentee, there is NO responsibility to maintain life? How do you justify that position? Or for that matter, why don't we make it mandatory for EVERYBODY to give their bodily resources to keep others alive even against their will, blood, organs and all? Why do we limit such a duty to women only?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

[quote="Sailor Moon']So you see, with the freedom of speech, and religion, religion CAN exist in government and affect law making, just as long as lawmaking doesnt affect religion. [/quote]Utter nonsense, as imposing a particular religious view through laws is directly against the US Constitution.

Quote: We have free will, but we live in a society where the people vote. Therefore the people make the laws. The people are welcome to write letters and let the government know whats best, whether their religion declares it that way or not, and that is allowed. Its our freedom of speech. Since the government is here to SERVE us, they must listen to the majority. Your claim is flat-out false, showing how truly ignorant you are of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Quote: I am working with Jehovas Witnesses on all this right now, but they say that abortion is against the word of God. The reason, I think, it because it takes away the authority of God. God wants authority in all matters, and when we sin, and especially when we kill, we take away his authority, his plans. We overstep our bounds, so to speak. As would be true for ANY medical care, even antibiotics. If God wants to kill you with germs, who are you to try to stay alive? Yeah, the JW positions are pretty loony in my view.

Quote: So, Jehovah is the creator, the Father, but Satan is the ruler, the temptor. It is very difficult, sometimes, to see what is a temptation and what is not. Thats why the Bible is such a great source for answers. The bible, the whole Bible, is the word of God, straight from the mouth of Him.

So, if the Bible says its okay, its okay, because thats Gods word. If God says its not okay, the bible will say so, too. And the bible doesn't speak against abortions, so that settles that.

But I take it from your claim that you are a creationist, right?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Sailor Moon wrote: ---And in case you hav any questions on that, just remember this. With the freedom of religion comes the freedom of speech. All of that was made clear in the first amendment. So, in other words, while the church can run the government, the government cannot run the church. That does not mean, in any way, that religious principles should be kept out of lawmaking. It just means that laws may not rule religious principles. The church can NOT run the Government. That **IS** in the first Amendment, which you continue to show incredible ignorance off.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

No, it says the government cannot run the church.

Hilarious!

Here ya go. First Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As you can see, religion can affect the laws, but the laws cannot affect religion.

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

Sailor Moon wrote: That is true. But if "some" people thought that murdering grown ups was "okay" should we make murder legal? Of course not...
Do you know why we would not make it legal? Because it hurts another voting citizen, this is exactly what I have been saying all along. The government has no right to restrict actions that do not harm another citizen, it has every right to restrict the harming of other citizens. If a group feels that their own quiet and peaceful suicide is a religious experience, then I don't believe it's the government's place to stop them.

Sailor Moon wrote: That is alot more food than some people get in a week! THEY SURVIVE TOO! So dont give me this "Oh its only the people who planned their pregnancies that are pro life" baloney with me!
This is getting ridiculous. If you're going to pretend to be engaging in a intellectual debate, at least read the posts before responding to them. I said that the majority of couples that SUPPORT LEGAL ABORTION plan the pregnancy and never go through with an abortion or even consider it. I don't know where that rant was supposed to be going but it sure didn't have anything to do with what I said.
Sailor Moon wrote: Fine, I dont care. Youre wrong.
Again, if you want people to take your argument seriously, either concede the points you lose or state this reason that brings you to the conclusion with no doubt in your mind.
Sailor Moon wrote: I have eaten ramen noodles, and hot dogs every day with my own son, for several months, just to stay alive.
You'll pardon me if I seem a bit incredulous here. If you're living off ramen noodles with your son, might I ask how it is that you have time to post 5000 word inflammatory answers on a political forum? You're too poor to afford better food than ramen noodles, but you pay for a doctor to abort your child at a cost 100 times higher than what it would be if you just did assisted abortion (something that according to you is far easier to do than having a doctor do it).

Sailor Moon wrote: Furthermore, I HAVE HAD AN ABORTION!
And yet you're ridiculously pro-life. Help me out with this one, why should I not find you hypocritical?

Sailor Moon wrote: I am so sick of bleeding heart liberals who dont even vote
Who says they're "bleeding heart liberals"? I am merely saying that for many, the political system is so far removed that even if they chose to involve themselves, they could never feel a connection with any candidate. People living at the poverty line don't really want to vote for a man who favors tax cuts for millionaires taking that money out of welfare and their income. Then again, they don't really want to vote for a multi-millionaire married to a multi-billionaire who also favors tax cuts for the rich because this country is so conservative, he couldn't possibly afford to stand any other way.

Only upper and middle classes play roles in politics, because only the upper and middle classes have something to gain by it. It is the same reason upper middle classes always lead rebellions. It is the same reason the book 1984, a classic for over half a century, is dedicated to the unsolvable and hopelessness of the lowest classes.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: That is true. But if "some" people thought that murdering grown ups was "okay" should we make murder legal? Of course not...
Do you know why we would not make it legal? Because it hurts another voting citizen, this is exactly what I have been saying all along. The government has no right to restrict actions that do not harm another citizen, it has every right to restrict the harming of other citizens. If a group feels that their own quiet and peaceful suicide is a religious experience, then I don't believe it's the government's place to stop them.

So its okay to kill a 16 year old, then? Theyre not voting citizens! Why do you think its not allowed to kill a 16 year old?

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: That is alot more food than some people get in a week! THEY SURVIVE TOO! So dont give me this "Oh its only the people who planned their pregnancies that are pro life" baloney with me!
This is getting ridiculous. If you're going to pretend to be engaging in a intellectual debate, at least read the posts before responding to them. I said that the majority of couples that SUPPORT LEGAL ABORTION plan the pregnancy and never go through with an abortion or even consider it. I don't know where that rant was supposed to be going but it sure didn't have anything to do with what I said.

I dont know anyone like that. Name a few. And I will name 100 more people who oppose legal abortion, who have either had abortions, been aborted, and survived, or was an abortion practitioner.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: I have eaten ramen noodles, and hot dogs every day with my own son, for several months, just to stay alive.
You'll pardon me if I seem a bit incredulous here. If you're living off ramen noodles with your son, might I ask how it is that you have time to post 5000 word inflammatory answers on a political forum? You're too poor to afford better food than ramen noodles, but you pay for a doctor to abort your child at a cost 100 times higher than what it would be if you just did assisted abortion (something that according to you is far easier to do than having a doctor do it).

Not now. That was when I lived in a small town, and was a massage therapist, and had to work a minimum wage job as well, just to put food on the table. Like I said, it was only a few months. I have several thousand dollars in my account right now, thank you.
And when I was 18, there really wasnt much of an internet to surf, and most people didnt even have a computer, much less, internet access. Oh the wonders of the WWW. And by the way, I had my kid AFTER the abortion. 2 pregnancies, see? Use your head now. Think. THINK!!!

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Furthermore, I HAVE HAD AN ABORTION!
And yet you're ridiculously pro-life. Help me out with this one, why should I not find you hypocritical?

Because Norma McCorvey is pro life too. I am not saying "dont have an abortion" and then going out and planning my own. I'm abstinent, as a matter of fact. Seeing and experiencing the truth about abortion is much different than sitting around talking about it. If you went and volunteered at a womans clinic, you might think differently also. Why dont you go do that? Dont you support abortion? Go help out! Go kill a few hundred fetuses every day and bring us a report of how its done. Tell us that women are NOT herder through the halls, lied to, and coerced. Tell us how those doctors do NOT sexually assault their patients. Tell us how nobody dies from legal abortion. Really. Tell us, how these doctors care sooo much. You dont have the guts. And for that, YOU are a hypocrite.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: I am so sick of bleeding heart liberals who dont even vote
Who says they're "bleeding heart liberals"? I am merely saying that for many, the political system is so far removed that even if they chose to involve themselves, they could never feel a connection with any candidate. People living at the poverty line don't really want to vote for a man who favors tax cuts for millionaires taking that money out of welfare and their income. Then again, they don't really want to vote for a multi-millionaire married to a multi-billionaire who also favors tax cuts for the rich because this country is so conservative, he couldn't possibly afford to stand any other way.

Only upper and middle classes play roles in politics, because only the upper and middle classes have something to gain by it. It is the same reason upper middle classes always lead rebellions. It is the same reason the book 1984, a classic for over half a century, is dedicated to the unsolvable and hopelessness of the lowest classes.

And it is the reason why abortion was made legal in the first place. Elite world domination.

What else? I couldnt have said it better myself. But if things are going to change, its not going to happen by not voting. And its not all about voting for the president. There are such things as local elections. You really should learn something about the voting system, before you start whining about it.

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego · Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 33

Ah, so we started with the religion argument, now we've moved on to the "They lied to us in the medical facilities" bit. I'm sure that you went into that office thinking you were just there for a lollipop.

How many times are you going to find a new pile of bullsh** before you leave this thread with your tail between your legs?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Sailor Moon wrote: No, it says the government cannot run the church.

Hilarious!

Here ya go. First Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As you can see, religion can affect the laws, but the laws cannot affect religion. Per the blue text above, your claim is false.