Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Florida passes 6 week abortion plan
Comments
-
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it. -
No. OBK is at Gitmo.creepycoug said:
Damone and I ran that guy off like a beeitch. He dead man. He dead.PurpleThrobber said:
Lawyers have the vril worm embedded in their eyes.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
OBK would know what that is.
@MikeDamone was the clone.
-
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
-
I agree with this. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothingTurdBomber said:
I know lots of atheists who are moral AF. A bunch are ex-catholics in my family, including myself - at times.creepycoug said:
I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.
Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO. -
Communism is a religion. So is the green gaia religion along with the LGBTQ∞ true believers. Toss in antifa and blm fanatics. There are true atheists, but just because it isn't a classic religion doesn't make it any less a religion.TurdBomber said:
I know lots of atheists who are moral AF. A bunch are ex-catholics in my family, including myself - at times.creepycoug said:
I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.
Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO. -
Judeo-Christian Doctrine.Blueduck said:
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
Why are you shafting the Jews? -
-
Don't forget the essential contributions of the Muslims to our founding. Barry thought so although for some reason he didn't show his work to come that conclusion.TurdBomber said:
Judeo-Christian Doctrine.Blueduck said:
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
Why are you shafting the Jews?
"[S]ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States." -
The first Christians were JewsTurdBomber said:
Judeo-Christian Doctrine.Blueduck said:
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
Why are you shafting the Jews? -
@Blueduck STOP!Blueduck said:
The first Christians were JewsTurdBomber said:
Judeo-Christian Doctrine.Blueduck said:
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
Why are you shafting the Jews? -
The first Christians were jewsTurdBomber said:
Judeo-Christian Doctrine.Blueduck said:
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
Why are you shafting the Jews?
Im sorry... you asked me a direct question, if you don't want a response....TurdBomber said:
@Blueduck STOP!Blueduck said:
The first Christians were JewsTurdBomber said:
Judeo-Christian Doctrine.Blueduck said:
If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.TurdBomber said:
Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.Blueduck said:
For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.TurdBomber said:
Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?Blueduck said:l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.
America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.
You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.
Why are you shafting the Jews?
Im out -
The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.
She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"
It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment. -
Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really -
What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.TurdBomber said:The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.
She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"
It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.
Btw
Your mother was only half right.
Dtm
-
All this hot Jewish talk and missing the point(s) entirely.
And a little something for the Papists.
Sorry, Presbyterians.
-
Not insulting anyone. Jesus WAS a jew. Yeah, okay, whatevs, but let's just say he was heretical then.Blueduck said:
What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.TurdBomber said:The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.
She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"
It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.
Btw
Your mother was only half right.
Dtm
Obviously the jews weren't worth the squeeze for the faith-challenged carpenter. SWIDT?
Anecdotal, to be sure. Much like muslims claiming Jesus was a Muslim.
Perhaps the best shoe-horning of a prophet in the history of man.
Which is, of course, only 6k years old. -
Throbber restored my faith in Joobs. I'll happily get on my knees for those.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
Oy Vey! -
TurdBomber said:
Not insulting anyone. Jesus WAS a jew. Yeah, okay, whatevs, but let's just say he was heretical then.Blueduck said:
What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.TurdBomber said:The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.
She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"
It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.
Btw
Your mother was only half right.
Dtm
Obviously the jews weren't worth the squeeze for the faith-challenged carpenter. SWIDT?
Anecdotal, to be sure. Much like muslims claiming Jesus was a Muslim.
Perhaps the best shoe-horning of a prophet in the history of man.
Which is, of course, only 6k years old.
I was done but since you quoted me again....TurdBomber said:
Not insulting anyone. Jesus WAS a jew. Yeah, okay, whatevs, but let's just say he was heretical then.Blueduck said:
What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.TurdBomber said:The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.
She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"
It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.
Btw
Your mother was only half right.
Dtm
Obviously the jews weren't worth the squeeze for the faith-challenged carpenter. SWIDT?
Anecdotal, to be sure. Much like muslims claiming Jesus was a Muslim.
Perhaps the best shoe-horning of a prophet in the history of man.
Which is, of course, only 6k years old.
I would like to share something with you.
In any military position you have superiors to report to, it was no different in the Roman empire.
Pontius Pilate had to report directly to Caesar and those official reports were saved and stored.
Chapter 8 of this Archive
Titled Valleus's notes -"Acta Pilati" contains Pontius Pilates report to Casear on The arrest trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and in the report Pilate gives his personal thoughts and feelings about the man.
This entire archive is fascinating and worthy of study but Pilates report is the point of sharing.
You can try to impeach the source if you wish but since the Archive comes from the Library of Congress and there is a section of provanance at the beginning explaining how/who /where and when the documents were obtained so you can research for yourself,
I am confident that you will find I am not deliberately bringing you a hoax and from my personal research study I believe them to be genuine.
Read, dont read, it is your choice
Will reading it change your view? Not the point.
Am I trying to save your soul? ... That's not my job
This is a sharing of information, only.
What you do with this information is entirely up to you.
https://ia800205.us.archive.org/5/items/archkovolume00mahaiala/archkovolume00mahaiala_djvu.txt
-
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
-
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall -
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
John get it!
The US government printed and distributed bibles for quite some time. It was the primary reading book in schools. -
Was Plato Sumerian?creepycoug said:
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall -
Dana Plato.RaceBannon said:
Was Plato Sumerian?creepycoug said:
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall
-
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore?
Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
As to the OP on abortion
I know this isn't going to be wildly popular but sex outside of marriage is, was, and should be frowned upon by the christian church and historically considered a sin. The results of disregarding this general stance, we are seeing and dealing with today in far greater numbers than just 50-60 years ago after the sexual revolution.
Abortion and taking of innocent life for poor decisions and lack of self control is abhorrent and should not be allowed.
(I am Not going to argue for or against caveats such as rape incest health of mother carrying full term)
IMHO The basic principle should not be compromised, but I am not without understanding and compassion for exigent circumstances....
Those decisions and options should be discussed and made with family, doctor, religious and or psychiatric council.
As to the point of the influence of the church in our government and everyday society,
Of course politicians can have religious backgrounds or not and use that as moral compass to base their decisions making policy.
You know that is not what I am talking about and I suspect you are baiting me into a sideways discussion here .
Many cases have been argued in court and have removed religious practice and influence from our public institutions,
If you need an example 1962 Engle v Vitale concerning prayer in the classroom is a big one among many cases.
More recently we just had a high school football coach dismissed for leading prayer with his players who wanted to participate after game/practice and had to sue (in which he won) to be reinstated with damages I believe...but this was clearly an attack on a religious activity and further attempt to erode any involvement in public life.
Religious exemption to the experimental C19er jab was denied in our military.
There is a plethora of historical evidence if you wish to look but only using a secular lens in your search will skew your success.
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
Your insult on whether my comments were worth typing is duly noted.
That was the purpose of "my $0.02" valuation
Now you are into me for $0.04
-
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison
-
Mall Cop endorses the Unitarian.Sledog said:
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
John get it!
The US government printed and distributed bibles for quite some time. It was the primary reading book in schools. -
Doubling down on stupid I see.HHusky said:
Mall Cop endorses the Unitarian.Sledog said:
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
John get it!
The US government printed and distributed bibles for quite some time. It was the primary reading book in schools. -
@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies. -
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I shared.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had hoped that you had gotten to the points where Pilate has actual interaction with Jesus and documents his thoughts and impressions.
To have an actual account to draw from and get an impression of his personality, I find fascinating!
On top of that...
Having a first hand, virtually unimpeachable account from an unbiased witness thrust into dealing with this person known as Jesus and to have seen, spoken to and ultimately decided the fate of this man, puts to bed many arguments that Jesus was not a real person but in fact was a living breathing person and not a fictional character in a Jewish fairy tale.
Attempting to keep it brief...(I will probably fail)
I can empathize with you growing up with a Catholic mother.
Mine was a staunch Baptist and would go to the point of turning herself in and offering to pay when she realized her son was pirating cable Tv that was accidentally left on by the cable company from the last tennant.
Lastly to the point of ultimate responsibility for the death of Jesus
I stated that your mother was only half right.
The Romans carried out the crucifixion and Pilate, specifically had his fate in his hand and concluded he had done no crime but obviously gave the choice to the people of Jerusalem.
But one has to take into account who the people living in Jerusalem actually were at the time, yes, there was Judeans but not all hebrews are Jews.
Over a century earlier the Edomites of Ideumea (Prior the land of Edom), from the line of Esau were mingled into the population and forced by threat of death to become Jews.
These are the same people who celebrated the Babylonian conquering killing and taking the Israelites as slaves centuries earlier.
King Herod who was mistakenly installed by the Romans as king of the Jews didn't understand the genealogy and tribes of Israel
Herod was an Edomite (descendant of Esau who sold his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of soup and later swore to get it back) and was the king who ordered the death of all newborns in an attempt to kill the prophesied coming king. Presumably Jesus.
But of course you know that story.
Ill end with this and bore you no further..
The Jews, Edomites and Romans all share in participating in the Crucifixion of Jesus but people mistakenly believe his death was a tragedy when in fact (if you believe the old testament in the bible) was an accomplishment and fulfilment of prophecy written of in great detail and predicted centuries earlier and also cryptically written in the genealogy recorded in Genesis 5...
But that would take a month of sundays and a course of ancient hebrew translation to cover.
...and with that, back to the discussion of (not) killing babies.
-
The Sumerians were polytheists. There is ample support for the idea that Plato was a monotheist. His "Form of Goodness" or "the Good" plays right into it.RaceBannon said:
Was Plato Sumerian?creepycoug said:
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall
#firstchristian
