Quote :

"My suspicion is that the whole thing was mostly a media creation. It's an economics election, but economics bore people."

The media made the candidates respond in the way that they did? Or the media made the administration create the policy the way that they did? What do you mean by 'media creation?'

Quote :

"And allow me to correct you. 40% of Americans apparently get their science lessons from bronze age mythology, but a good deal more get their moral teachings there. "

I don't think it's a stretch to assume if someone is getting their science from the Bible, then they're also getting their morality from the Bible. That's kind of the point of the book, right?

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 4:19:19 PM

the true enemy to america


the greatest ally to america:



[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ,]

2/24/2012 5:27:17 PM

the true way of life and liberty:


[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:35 PM. Reason : -]

2/24/2012 5:29:19 PM

Poor wall street.

2/24/2012 5:35:57 PM

good point. who needs a private sector or non federal jobs? all we need is sharia law style environmentalism

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ,]

2/24/2012 5:37:12 PM

Are you sure you recently haven't had a stroke or something? I seriously don't know what in the hell any of your posts are addressing or saying.

2/24/2012 8:17:59 PM

Quote :

"I do not think the 1st Amendment guarantees you the right to impose your will on others just because you yell "religion!" while you do it."

no one is imposing their will on anyone here by saying they won't pay for something that is against their religious belief. No employer is saying they want to be able to fire women who use birth control. get that crazy idea out of your head.

Quote :

"You think that allowing your children to die instead of providing them with life-saving medical care is a 1st Amendment issue. I do not."

And you would be wrong. Following your religious beliefs is clearly 1st amendment related. you dictating that they must go against their beliefs in order to make you happy is a violation of their right to religious freedom.

2/24/2012 9:25:31 PM

Quote :

"And you would be wrong. Following your religious beliefs is clearly 1st amendment related. you dictating that they must go against their beliefs in order to make you happy is a violation of their right to religious freedom."

This only works if you believe children are capable of making competent decisions about healthcare and religion.

2/24/2012 10:22:36 PM

Quote :

"And you would be wrong. Following your religious beliefs is clearly 1st amendment related. you dictating that they must go against their beliefs in order to make you happy is a violation of their right to religious freedom."

But your religious beliefs aren't allowed to jeopardize the welfare of others either.

2/25/2012 12:28:13 AM

Quote :

"The media made the candidates respond in the way that they did? Or the media made the administration create the policy the way that they did? What do you mean by 'media creation?'"

I'm saying that there's no good goddamn reason for this to ever have been a major part of the national discourse. The administration put forward a policy that wasn't all that objectionable except to a narrow part of society. The GOP would have been wise to just wave it off. But if you're a reporter who gets it into his head that this story is news, or a network exec who thinks it will draw more interest than Greek financial problems, you make a big deal about the issue, forcing the candidates, etc. to talk about it. Once they're boxed in, the GOP guys pretty much have to say something stupid because of an idiotic political apparatus based primarily on opposing the president.

In short, I don't think the GOP candidates wanted this to become a big deal, because they knew the position they would have to take would be unpopular and hand an easy win to Obama.

Quote :

"I don't think it's a stretch to assume if someone is getting their science from the Bible, then they're also getting their morality from the Bible. That's kind of the point of the book, right?"

40% = according to you, people who think the earth was created, as-is, some 12,000 years ago or whatever. Presumably all of these people claim to get their morality from the Bible.
However, since we know that there are Christians who do not believe in strict creationism and presumably also claim to get their moral teachings from the Bible...
And since we can safely guess that there are no atheist creationists running around...

The number of people who get their moral teachings from the Bible is higher than 40%.

I swear you're being intentionally dense just to make me hang myself.

2/25/2012 4:44:38 PM

Quote :

"no one is imposing their will on anyone here by saying they won't pay for something that is against their religious belief. No employer is saying they want to be able to fire women who use birth control. get that crazy idea out of your head. "

It hasn't been about payment for weeks. Obama clearly took this out and pushed the payment onto the insurers. So anyone who is still against it is clearly just about controlling the distribution of birth control to their employees: imposing your will.

Quote :

"And you would be wrong. Following your religious beliefs is clearly 1st amendment related. you dictating that they must go against their beliefs in order to make you happy is a violation of their right to religious freedom. "

Up until the point that you harm another person. Please tell me why that's wrong.

Quote :

"I'm saying that there's no good goddamn reason for this to ever have been a major part of the national discourse. The administration put forward a policy that wasn't all that objectionable except to a narrow part of society. The GOP would have been wise to just wave it off. But if you're a reporter who gets it into his head that this story is news, or a network exec who thinks it will draw more interest than Greek financial problems, you make a big deal about the issue, forcing the candidates, etc. to talk about it. Once they're boxed in, the GOP guys pretty much have to say something stupid because of an idiotic political apparatus based primarily on opposing the president. In short, I don't think the GOP candidates wanted this to become a big deal, because they knew the position they would have to take would be unpopular and hand an easy win to Obama."

You mean, the media forced those involved to throw press conferences? Or make all-male, religious leader commities to discuss a woman's issue?

Besides that, "narrow part of society?" Clearly it must be less narrow than you believe or why would our politicians pander to them? 40% are creationists.

Quote :

"40% = according to you, people who think the earth was created, as-is, some 12,000 years ago or whatever. Presumably all of these people claim to get their morality from the Bible. However, since we know that there are Christians who do not believe in strict creationism and presumably also claim to get their moral teachings from the Bible... And since we can safely guess that there are no atheist creationists running around... The number of people who get their moral teachings from the Bible is higher than 40%. I swear you're being intentionally dense just to make me hang myself."

Wait. I'm being dense because I low balled the number of people that get their morality from ancient scrolls and yet you're arguing that those people are a non-issue. I was referring to the fundamentalists who take the Bible literally who is assuredly the segment of our population that anti-birth control politician are pandering to.

2/25/2012 7:09:47 PM

^ There is nothing wrong with getting your morality from "ancient scrolls". In fact, I still think that imitatio christi is still the way to live one's life. The problem is that people read it wrong, and think they should go to war over things such as birth control, abortion, and gay marriage. The people just don't know how to read it correctly, and they see only what they want to see.

[Edited on February 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM. Reason : I am not religious btw.]

2/25/2012 7:52:41 PM

HEY just got another good liberal gov't intervention idea...


we should have a billion dollar qu'ran printing fund. just to keep those little persian shits happy. hey if it prevents a war by giving them all clean printed muslim bibles why not? might as well get the govt involved in that religious / moral issue too.

2/25/2012 9:30:25 PM

Quote :

"So anyone who is still against it is clearly just about controlling the distribution of birth control to their employees: imposing your will."

The fuck? Seriously? Not wanting to provide something is the same as wanting to control the distribution of that something?

2/25/2012 11:11:23 PM

^^ Pack_Bryan may be onto something here. The middle east clearly loses its shit if the Koran is burned (which was a dumb move by the troops) so print a ton of those things and strap them all over our troops, aircraft, entrance to embassies, bases etc. Then, we can't be killed because they can't harm the Koran.....

2/26/2012 9:52:29 AM

^haaa

absofuckinglutely brilliant. they'd be unable to kill us since they'd be 'desecrating' their holy book.

2/26/2012 11:00:14 AM

Quote :

"This only works if you believe children are capable of making competent decisions about healthcare and religion."

are you then saying that parents shouldn't be able to make decisions about the healthcare of their children? or, should parents be forced to make whatever decision you deem is practical? In this case, the parents are making a decision on what kind of care to get. You just don't like what decision they made and you think you should be able to force them to pick a different route of medical care. that's disgusting to me.

Quote :

"Obama clearly took this out and pushed the payment onto the insurers."

yes. now employers have to provide insurance that provides birth control, as opposed to before where they had to provide insurance that provides birth control. no. fucking. change.

Quote :

"So anyone who is still against it is clearly just about controlling the distribution of birth control to their employees: imposing your will."

get back to me when employers are firing people for using or purchasing birth control.

2/28/2012 3:29:33 PM

Quote :

"are you then saying that parents shouldn't be able to make decisions about the healthcare of their children? or, should parents be forced to make whatever decision you deem is practical? In this case, the parents are making a decision on what kind of care to get. You just don't like what decision they made and you think you should be able to force them to pick a different route of medical care. that's disgusting to me."

They can make decisions regarding the healthcare of their children right up to the point where they're being negligent and bringing harm to their children. You seem to think negligence and harm in the name of religion is ok. That's the problem.

Quote :

"yes. now employers have to provide insurance that provides birth control, as opposed to before where they had to provide insurance that provides birth control. no. fucking. change."

Then WTF are the Catholics complaining about?

Quote :

"get back to me when employers are firing people for using or purchasing birth control. "

Arbitrarily deciding where the demarcation of affecting others' lives counts. GG.

2/28/2012 5:11:30 PM

Quote :

"are you then saying that parents shouldn't be able to make decisions about the healthcare of their children? or, should parents be forced to make whatever decision you deem is practical? In this case, the parents are making a decision on what kind of care to get. You just don't like what decision they made and you think you should be able to force them to pick a different route of medical care. that's disgusting to me."

Sigh.

First of all--if you're capable--let's be clear and honest: the "route of medical care" being selected is, in fact, no medical care whatsoever. We're not talking about ibuprfen versus aspirin versus acetaminophen. We're talking about the decision of parents to not seek medical attention for their children.

Some other questions you should add to your little false dilemma are:

How can failure to seek medical attention for children under your care be considered child abuse in one situation and religious freedom in another?

How do you balance the rights of parents against the rights of children, particularly in situations where excercise of the parents' rights (e.g., religious freedoms) can have significant life-altering or life-ending consequences for the child?

How are the rights of children protected when a child is not competent to make decisions regarding those rights?

Does the general rule of "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins" apply to parent-child relationships?

Or, are we back to children don't have rights?

2/28/2012 5:13:55 PM

the only way liberals can hope to win the election is to take the issues off of peoples wallets and make them think about somehow that republicans are monsters b/c of religion and wanting to save babies.

clever move.

but ultimately will fail when people have 0 cash on hand

2/28/2012 5:15:24 PM

Jesus fucking christ dude. Quit saying "not relevant to current events" in every fucking thread. The topics on hand are pertinent to the topic of discussion for this particular thread. Who cares whether the election will be won or lost on them?

2/28/2012 5:16:54 PM

Virginia's Senate has passed legislation that requires women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasound exams. What do you think about this new mandate?

Quote :

"Brooke Fenton: How selfish to say "its my body its my right" um NO.. it is NOT your body.. it is the baby's!!"

wow. just wow.

2/28/2012 5:21:31 PM

Quote :

"First of all--if you're capable--let's be clear and honest: the "route of medical care" being selected is, in fact, no medical care whatsoever."

to you. if they wanted to chose tylenol over advil, would you still be shitting a brick? they are choosing a different route, one that you don't like and don't think will work. They should be allowed to do that. fuck you for forcing YOUR beliefs on them. Would you be OK with it if they decided to try and tell you that you couldn't take your kid to a doctor? of course not. don't do the same thing to them.

Quote :

"They can make decisions regarding the healthcare of their children right up to the point where they're being negligent and bringing harm to their children."

except they aren't being negligent. They are doing what they think is right by praying. You think it's stupid, that's fine. But they are trying something that they think will work, which puts the "negligence" argument to rest. That they are doing something that their religion prescribes, too, just seals the deal.

Quote :

"Then WTF are the Catholics complaining about?"

That the "no change" is an actual affront to their religious beliefs. Is this all that hard to follow? Obama first said they had to pay for insurance that would provide birth control, which they didn't used to have to do. Then, as a "compromise", he said that they would have to pay for insurance that would provide birth control. Get it now?

Quote :

"Arbitrarily deciding where the demarcation of affecting others' lives counts. GG."

There's nothing "arbitrary" about it. You are declaring by fiat that an employer is magically preventing its women employes from in any way acquiring birth control, and that is a complete farce, and you know it. No employer is doing such a thing, nor are any proposing that they be able to do so.

Quote :

"Some other questions you should add to your little false dilema are:"

do parents really have any rights to raise their children when they must do exactly as you say?

2/28/2012 5:26:50 PM

lol:

Quote :

"The Chinese government isn't getting rid of its one-child policy currently in place. It's just making it sound better. China's communist party newspaper, People's Daily, reports that the government will revamp its abrasive-sounding slogans surrounding the policy. People's Daily cites several examples of "harsh slogans," including those "which sometimes even threaten criminal acts." The newly instituted program, slugged the "face-washing project," will offer more proactive slogans to help enforce the policy, which has been in place since 1979. China claims the policy, which applies to those living in urban areas, affects approximately 35.9 percent of the population and has resulted in an estimated 400 million fewer births since first being implemented. Some examples of the more offensive slogans currently in use include: "If you don't receive the tubal ligation surgery by the deadline, your house will be demolished!" "We would rather scrape your womb than allow you to have a second child!" "Kill all your family members if you don't follow the rule!" And… "Once you get captured, an immediate tubal ligation will be done; Should you escape, we'll hunt you down; If you attempt a suicide, we'll offer you either the rope or a bottle of poison.""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/china-soften-one-child-policy-slogans-not-law-200726036.html

[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2012 5:27:08 PM

Quote :

"do parents really have any rights to raise their children when they must do exactly as you say?"

This is your response. Seriously?

2/28/2012 5:33:54 PM

what is your response? do they have any rights if they must do exactly as you see fit? That's nanny-state bullshit, and it is certainly counter to the 1st Amendment in this case. Do you just not give a fuck about the Constitution at all in your effort to lionize the children above all else?

2/28/2012 5:56:06 PM

When you argue against opinions and beliefs you yourself have ascribed to other people, do you think you're being smart, witty, or what?

I ask, because no one in this thread has taken the position that you're attempting to rail against.

2/28/2012 6:07:34 PM

how do you figure? you think that Christian Scientists should be forced to seek medical care for their children, despite them having a religious objection to it. Is it not your contention that getting medical care is what you would say they should do?

2/28/2012 6:12:05 PM

Quote :

"you think that Christian Scientists should be forced to seek medical care for their children, despite them having a religious objection to it."

Bear with me for a moment--

Who is 'them' in this sentence?

2/28/2012 6:17:22 PM

CS, der. or is it now your contention that a parent can't take their kid to church because we don't know if the kid wants it or not? like it or not, we give parents some leeway in raising their kids and in regards to religion.

2/28/2012 6:19:30 PM

Quote :

"CS, der."

Christian Scientist parents or Christian Scientist children?

2/28/2012 6:22:57 PM

dude, I know where you are going, and it is still wrong. We allow parents to raise their children in the religion they see fit. CS parents not seeking medical help and instead using prayer as an attempt to heal their sick children is CLEARLY protected by the 1st amendment as an expression of their religion. Or, is it your contention that a parent can't take his child to church because we don't know if the child wants to go to church?

I don't like that some kids will die, but I'm not going to put following earnestly held beliefs and praying into the same league as negligence. I'm not going to force someone to go against their religious beliefs simply because I think I know better or my ways are better. fuck you for shitting on religion

2/28/2012 6:28:05 PM

Quote :

"dude, I know where you are going, and it is still wrong."

Where am I going and why is it wrong?

2/28/2012 6:34:35 PM

if you don't know, then why are you arguing?

2/28/2012 6:44:34 PM

Forgive me if I don't take your claims to know what is in my head at face value.

2/28/2012 6:52:01 PM

Quote :

"sharia law style environmentalism"

wtf does this even mean?

2/28/2012 7:01:58 PM

Quote :

"they are choosing a different route, one that you don't like and don't think will work. "

What you meant to say was "one that you don't think will work because the preponderance of evidence suggests that it won't."

Or is it your contention that prayer works better than doing nothing? If I have prove this point to you I really don't think we can have this conversation.

Quote :

"except they aren't being negligent. They are doing what they think is right by praying. You think it's stupid, that's fine. But they are trying something that they think will work, which puts the "negligence" argument to rest. That they are doing something that their religion prescribes, too, just seals the deal."

Except it doesn't. Just because they believe really really hard that it will work is no indication that there's any chance whatsoever that it will. You're essentially giving a pass to any delusional person here. If I believe really really hard that shooting you in the face will be good for you does that mean I shouldn't be held responsible for the actual results of shooting you in the face? Or does there have to have been mystic scrolls proclaming that the god of shooting aaronburro in the face gave his only begotten son to prophesize the coming of disco_stu to shoot aaronburro in the face?

Or do I have to be your dad for this to be ok? Honestly I have no idea how anyone in the 21st century could think this is reasonable!

Quote :

"That the "no change" is an actual affront to their religious beliefs. Is this all that hard to follow? Obama first said they had to pay for insurance that would provide birth control, which they didn't used to have to do. Then, as a "compromise", he said that they would have to pay for insurance that would provide birth control. Get it now?"

And you're saying that forcing them to not deny their employees this coverage is oppression.

Quote :

"There's nothing "arbitrary" about it. You are declaring by fiat that an employer is magically preventing its women employes from in any way acquiring birth control, and that is a complete farce, and you know it. No employer is doing such a thing, nor are any proposing that they be able to do so."

Except I never ever made this claim. What you're suggesting here is that the presence of birth control as part of an employer-provided insurance plan is entirely of non-benefit to the women employees. They're not losing anything right?

Why would anyone choose an employer that provides health coverage at all? I mean, we can take away whatever parts of that coverage we want and they could just buy it elsewhere, amirite?

Quote :

"what is your response? do they have any rights if they must do exactly as you see fit? That's nanny-state bullshit, and it is certainly counter to the 1st Amendment in this case. Do you just not give a fuck about the Constitution at all in your effort to lionize the children above all else?"

Only in aaronburo-land is "don't kill your kids in the name of mystical bullshit which has no evidentiary support" a nanny-state bullshit law. Thankfully in the USA in the 21st century our courts don't agree. (they happen to be right, but not by virtue of being the court, by virtue of not being completely irrational). [edit--actually a lot of fucking states have provisions to reduce the ability to prosecute.. ]

Quote :

"CS, der. or is it now your contention that a parent can't take their kid to church because we don't know if the kid wants it or not? like it or not, we give parents some leeway in raising their kids and in regards to religion."

I mean, I'm not the one arguing that taking your kids to church is the equivalent of killing them; you said it, not me.

Quote :

"CS parents not seeking medical help and instead using prayer as an attempt to heal their sick children is CLEARLY protected by the 1st amendment as an expression of their religion."

Prayer doesn't work. If it worked these kids wouldn't die, Tim Tebow would win the Superbowl, and terrible shit wouldn't happen to people at the exact same rate as if they didn't pray at all. Any rational person knows this. Someone denying this to the detriment of their child's life should be charged with a crime. None of the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution allow us to harm others. I can't punch you in the face and claim it was expression!

Quote :

"I don't like that some kids will die, but I'm not going to put following earnestly held beliefs and praying into the same league as negligence. I'm not going to force someone to go against their religious beliefs simply because I think I know better or my ways are better. fuck you for shitting on religion "

So that's it? "Earnestly held beliefs" is all it takes to do something incredibly evil and get away with it? This is utterly and completely disconnected with reality. We couldn't have a society if this were the actual law of the land. Thank your god it isn't.

We're not just guessing that praying for your sick kids to get better doesn't do dick. We know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. You're being dishonest (big surprise there, I know) by repeatedly saying "You just think your way is better." We know that prayer is the equivalent of doing nothing.

[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2012 8:13:57 PM

I'll ask you, disco_stu:

Are these unreasonable, inflammatory or anti-religious questions?

Quote :

"How can failure to seek medical attention for children under your care be considered child abuse in one situation and religious freedom in another? How do you balance the rights of parents against the rights of children, particularly in situations where excercise of the parents' rights (e.g., religious freedoms) can have significant life-altering or life-ending consequences for the child? How are the rights of children protected when a child is not competent to make decisions regarding those rights? Does the general rule of "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins" apply to parent-child relationships? Or, are we back to children don't have rights?"

Follow up:

Does

Quote :

"do parents really have any rights to raise their children when they must do exactly as you say?"

answer any of the above questions?

Just looking for a sanity check...

2/28/2012 8:24:32 PM

They're unreasonable, inflammatory and anti-religious if you believe that "the right to be negligent toward my children to the point of them dying" should be protected as a 1st Amendment freedom. That is to say, to a completely irrational mind, yes they are unreasonable, inflammatory and anti-religious.

And of course no, he didn't address any of it because it's devastating to his argument.

2/28/2012 8:28:06 PM

this is awesome

2/28/2012 8:47:51 PM

^^ Sometimes I stay stupid shit; just wanted to make sure this wasn't one of those times.

Thanks!

2/28/2012 8:48:51 PM

birth control. why does anybody even give a fuck? lol.

it's a non-issue. just stop.

[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ,]

2/28/2012 9:33:57 PM

Quote :

"What you meant to say was "one that you don't think will work because the preponderance of evidence suggests that it won't.""

doesn't matter. 1st amendment protects their right to pick a choice of action that isn't the most optimal in this case.

Quote :

"You're essentially giving a pass to any delusional person here."

only, I'm not.

Quote :

"If I believe really really hard that shooting you in the face will be good for you does that mean I shouldn't be held responsible for the actual results of shooting you in the face?"

praying really hard =/= shooting a random person in the face. you lose.

Quote :

"And you're saying that forcing them to not deny their employees this coverage is oppression. "

when it goes against their religious beliefs, absofuckinglutely. The 1st amendment is pretty damned clear, dude. If you don't like it, then don't ever complain about anything being unConstitutional. it's not multiple choice.

Quote :

"What you're suggesting here is that the presence of birth control as part of an employer-provided insurance plan is entirely of non-benefit to the women employees."

go ahead, complete the strawman.

Quote :

"Only in aaronburo-land is "don't kill your kids in the name of mystical bullshit which has no evidentiary support" a nanny-state bullshit law."

no, the nanny-state bullshit is you declaring that your beliefs are better and the parents should have no rights to raise their children in their own religion. We're not talking about child sacrificing. We're talking about praying.

Quote :

"I mean, I'm not the one arguing that taking your kids to church is the equivalent of killing them; you said it, not me."

some would argue that. And the logical extension of "we don't know what the children want" applies to that case, too. We don't know if the children want to go to church, so we can't allow the parent to force them to go. Church is evil, so we can't allow that! We don't know if the children want to wash behind their ears, so we can't allow the parents to force them to wash behind their ears. Sorry, parents have rights to raise their children.

Quote :

"Prayer doesn't work."

I agree. But it isn't the gov't's job to force that belief on other people. 1st. fucking. Amendment. get that through your thick, religion-hating, bigoted skull. 1st. fucking. Amendment. Got that? Great, now let's move on.

Quote :

"So that's it? "Earnestly held beliefs" is all it takes to do something incredibly evil and get away with it?"

So now "praying" is something "incredibly evil"? What in the fuck is wrong with you? Look, you force them to take their kids to a hospital, and they believe that they and their kids are going to hell. THAT is incredibly fucking evil. I'm sorry you don't agree with their beliefs, but that's how it is, dude. And it's protected. If you are OK with pissing on their beliefs, then that means you are also OK with anyone else forcing their beliefs on you. I don't roll that way. That's why the 1st Amendment exists. And if it allows some bad things to happen in the name of protecting people's ability to have their own beliefs and not be trampled on by the gov't, that's fine with me. Other people will look around and people doing stupid shit like that and say "those people are crazy, let's not do that." Or, we can go your route and let enough religious nutjobs get into power and then demand that you go to church every week, twice a week, and you can cut off people's hands if they steal. Which would you prefer?

Quote :

"We're not just guessing that praying for your sick kids to get better doesn't do dick. We know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. You're being dishonest (big surprise there, I know) by repeatedly saying "You just think your way is better." We know that prayer is the equivalent of doing nothing. "

So, in your nanny-state perfection, you would declare that the gov't can demand which course of treatment you must choose, based only on which is the most likely to succeed. What is the threshold for that? How much more effective should a treatment be before the gov't can tell you to fuck off and do what they say?

Quote :

""the right to be negligent toward my children to the point of them dying""

only in a bigoted mind would it make sense to say that doing something you believe will work on account of your religion is negligence.

2/29/2012 1:17:53 PM

What are your thoughts on honor killings?

2/29/2012 1:32:08 PM

Quote :

"So now "praying" is something "incredibly evil"? What in the fuck is wrong with you? Look, you force them to take their kids to a hospital, and they believe that they and their kids are going to hell. THAT is incredibly fucking evil. I'm sorry you don't agree with their beliefs, but that's how it is, dude. And it's protected. If you are OK with pissing on their beliefs, then that means you are also OK with anyone else forcing their beliefs on you. I don't roll that way. That's why the 1st Amendment exists. And if it allows some bad things to happen in the name of protecting people's ability to have their own beliefs and not be trampled on by the gov't, that's fine with me. Other people will look around and people doing stupid shit like that and say "those people are crazy, let's not do that." Or, we can go your route and let enough religious nutjobs get into power and then demand that you go to church every week, twice a week, and you can cut off people's hands if they steal. Which would you prefer? "

No, "praying instead of taking your dying kids to the hospital" is what's evil. Not "praying".

You're just not getting it. Being delusional to the harm of others is not a right protected by the 1st Amendment. It does not matter that you read it in a mystic scroll and you believe it really really hard. It doesn't matter if you label it "religion."

What I want is a nation of people that can believe whatever the fuck they want but not to the harm of others and especially not their children.

I'm not going to line-by-line respond to keep this thread succinct because this truly is the crux of our disagreement. And at this point, I no longer care what's in state laws, the Constitution, or whatever. It is a moral imperative that we grow the fuck up and stop letting ignorant savages let their children suffer through torture and death in the name of Yahweh or Jesus. You think dying of cancer or an allergic reaction is painless? And you think this is an acceptable amount of suffering to protect what freedom exactly? Religious people can't practice their religion without harming others? Well, I'll be.

2/29/2012 2:37:09 PM

.It's also evil that they put the idea of hell in their children's head to begin with. It's a delusion and its fine, I'll defend your right to have your delusion. The only reason religion is respected at all is that there is safety in numbers. There aren't a ton of Scientologists so we can laugh about how fucking insane Scientology is..but its no crazier than any of the Abrahamic shit.

To take a child and tell them they are filthy by birth. That their natural impulses are sins and that they will be tortured forever in a lake of fire is child abuse same as beating them. Beating your kid gets them taken from you. Psychological abuse should count just as much.

but, religion isn't going anywhere so long as man has a fear of death and a penchant for wishful thinking.

[Edited on February 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ...]

2/29/2012 2:43:59 PM

I don't understand why it's such a big surprise to so many people that "religious" teachings can be distorted and corrupted just like different philosophical systems. Sometimes in these threads I feel like everyone is ready to jump on the bandwagon of condemning extremely religious people for their actions while not looking on the actions of everyone else in the world. Violence and evil is everywhere and done by everyone, I'm not quite sure how the "ultra religious" are a more damning example of this.


Here is some soothing dog lobster to go with this post:

2/29/2012 4:58:17 PM

Swing and a miss. I don't suggest the religious have a monopoly on evil or delusion.

However, to quote Steven Weinberg...

Quote :

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "

2/29/2012 5:00:29 PM

more tiresome religious bashing from disco_stu

we get it: you don't beleive in god. some people do, and you think they're foolish/evil/crazy/etc.

just shut the fuck up with pointing it out every little chance you get, k?

[Edited on February 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM. Reason : or at least hold it to one of our 10000 religion threads]

2/29/2012 6:05:28 PM

I know, why is birth control a religious topic anyway?

2/29/2012 6:49:53 PM