Tea Party = American Taliban

• mella

  I Wear Pants;1255889 wrote:I'm not protecting your right to cut your son's penis.
  
  I don't have like strong feelings on the subject but I also don't really see any reason why it needs to be done so it doesn't bug me if they'd ban them.

  Not to change your opinion, but the health benefits outweigh the negative aspects of it.
  
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-201208271300--tms--kidsdocctnkd-a20120827-20120827,0,2052917.story
• I Wear Pants

  mella;1255894 wrote:Not to change your opinion, but the health benefits outweigh the negative aspects of it.
  
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-201208271300--tms--kidsdocctnkd-a20120827-20120827,0,2052917.story

  Well that story literally came out today (saw it on reddit about 5 minutes after I posted that and honestly I don't give enough fucks to edit it).
• jmog

  Devils Advocate;1255863 wrote:So you think that it is OK for a mother to circumcise a live baby against it's informed consent and not ok for a female to abort a parasite?

  If you ever read up on the medical benefits of circumcision, you would be all for it. Trust me, no man wants to go through the urinary tract infections, increased risk of penis cancer, etc.
  
  Not only that but there are studies that show decreased rates of STDs in circumcized men.
  
  Also, calling a growing baby a parasite is just plain gross.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1255889 wrote:I'm not protecting your right to cut your son's penis.
  
  I don't have like strong feelings on the subject but I also don't really see any reason why it needs to be done so it doesn't bug me if they'd ban them.

  1. It doesn't bug you to infringe on the religious beliefs of people? What, the whole 1st Amendment be damned huh?
  2. Google the health benefits of circumcision and you might change your tune.
• mella

  I Wear Pants;1255923 wrote:Well that story literally came out today (saw it on reddit about 5 minutes after I posted that and honestly I don't give enough ****s to edit it).

  The article was in a Chicago newspaper today. The science behind the article is not from today.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1255934 wrote:1. It doesn't bug you to infringe on the religious beliefs of people? What, the whole 1st Amendment be damned huh?
  2. Google the health benefits of circumcision and you might change your tune.

  Although I agree about the circumcision stuff, your interpretation of the 1st amendment is negligent at best. Religion is unregulated. It's a cop out for people to avoid rules and laws since you can just claim they are against your beliefs. I might start a religion that focuses on smoking weed and if a cop arrests me I will claim the 1st amendment.
  
  Get real.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1255934 wrote:1. It doesn't bug you to infringe on the religious beliefs of people? What, the whole 1st Amendment be damned huh?
  2. Google the health benefits of circumcision and you might change your tune.

  The counter to that argument is that physical mutilation isn't/shouldn't be protected.
  
  Off course I don't really give a shit and for the most part being contrarian but any and all reason for circumcision being allowed needs to be based on health and science issues. If the only reasons for cutting a baby's dick were religious then we should not allow that.
• mella

  sleeper;1255944 wrote: I might start a religion that focuses on smoking weed and if a cop arrests me I will claim the 1st amendment.
  
  Get real.

  Sleeper = rasta guru. When do services start?
• sleeper

  

  mella;1255958 wrote:Sleeper = rasta guru. When do services start?

  It's definitely been something on my mind the past few years. I don't smoke weed, but it would help foster the opinion that churches should have their non-profit status revoked.
• HitsRus

  

  It's already been tried ( hiding behind religion to smoke weed) and it doesn't work.
  http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/12/marijuana-conviction-upheld-religious.html
  
  
  Moreover, if you are going to selectively edit the first amendment because it doesn't fit your atheistic/elitist beliefs, then you are no better than the people in charge today and their attacks on other aspects of the Constitution.
• O-Trap

  

  Devils Advocate;1255691 wrote:1. Ideological Purity ( with em or against em)
  
  2. Compromise is weakness
  
  3. A fundamental belief in scriptural literalism
  
  4. Denying Science
  
  5. Unmoved by facts
  
  6. Undeterred by new information
  
  7. A hostile fear of progress
  
  8. A demonization of education
  
  9. A need to control women's bodies
  
  10. Intolerance of dissent
  
  11. Pathological hatred of the U.S. Govt.
  
  There you go guys...11 reasons with out mentioning race
  
  I did not leave the right.... The right left me.

  Original Tea Party:
  
  1. Against deficit spending
  
  2. Government adherence to the US Constitution
  
  ... that was pretty much it. No party alignments or specific issues beyond that. It was intended to go across party lines to find all those who are tired of the deficit spending and general fiscal responsibility. Got railroaded pretty quickly.
  

  QuakerOats;1255766 wrote:... taliban turbin wraps whacked off 17 yesterday; not sure how many the Tea Party did.

  
  Given that much of the modern Tea Party is a giant circle jerk, I'm guessing they whacked off more than 17.
  

  Devils Advocate;1255863 wrote:So you think that it is OK for a mother to circumcise a live baby against it's informed consent and not ok for a female to abort a parasite?

  
  It's the notion that both are people. I don't think that, given such a premise, it's that difficult to assert the acceptability of a procedure that has some documented health advantages while denouncing the ending of that person's life. You might disagree with the whole "person" thing, but if you did not, it shouldn't be difficult to see why that isn't an unrealistic position.
  

  I Wear Pants;1255889 wrote:I'm not protecting your right to cut your son's penis.

  Chalk this up as a sentence I'm betting you thought you'd never type.
  

  I Wear Pants;1255889 wrote:I don't have like strong feelings on the subject but I also don't really see any reason why it needs to be done so it doesn't bug me if they'd ban them.

  Careful with this notion. I'm not sure I'm okay with banning anything that isn't a necessity.
  

  I Wear Pants;1255923 wrote:Well that story literally came out today (saw it on reddit about 5 minutes after I posted that and honestly I don't give enough fucks to edit it).

  
  However, it has been circulated for some time that circumcision bears some health-related advantages. Granted, advanced learning has minimized the risks substantially, but they do still exist in a greater capacity when compared to circumcision.
  

  jmog;1255932 wrote:Also, calling a growing baby a parasite is just plain gross.

  
  Technically, it does fit the definition if the pregnancy is unwanted.
  

  jmog;1255934 wrote:1. It doesn't bug you to infringe on the religious beliefs of people? What, the whole 1st Amendment be damned huh?

  
  Eh, I'm not sure I'd take this route.
  
  Those against circumcision seem to be against it because they believe that said First Amendment rights don't permit you to infringe on the rights of another, ie the child getting his turtleneck removed.
  
  Many a terrorist has infringed on the rights of others in the name of his religious belief. As such, I probably wouldn't use that as my defense for circumcision.
  

  I Wear Pants;1255946 wrote:The counter to that argument is that physical mutilation isn't/shouldn't be protected.
  
  Off course I don't really give a shit and for the most part being contrarian but any and all reason for circumcision being allowed needs to be based on health and science issues.

  
  Indeed. I think that if there are health benefits, then it absolutely should be treated no differently than vaccinations or other shots.
  
  As for it not being allowed if not a health issue ... would you feel the same way about parents piercing their children's ears?
  

  sleeper;1255967 wrote:It's definitely been something on my mind the past few years. I don't smoke weed, but it would help foster the opinion that churches should have their non-profit status revoked.

  
  If it's functioning as a non-profit, why shouldn't it be a non-profit?
  
  Given that all churches are not equal in this regard, it would seem incorrect to treat unequals equally.
  

  HitsRus;1256061 wrote:It's already been tried ( hiding behind religion to smoke weed) and it doesn't work.
  http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/12/marijuana-conviction-upheld-religious.html

  Eh, just because it "hasn't" doesn't mean it "shouldn't."
• sleeper

  

  HitsRus;1256061 wrote:It's already been tried ( hiding behind religion to smoke weed) and it doesn't work.
  http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/12/marijuana-conviction-upheld-religious.html
  
  
  Moreover, if you are going to selectively edit the first amendment because it doesn't fit your atheistic/elitist beliefs, then you are no better than the people in charge today and their attacks on other aspects of the Constitution.

  They didn't try hard enough. Whenever I retire, I will spend every dollar in my bank account on getting religious institutions to pay taxes. Without tax free operations, they will be forced to charge money to maintain operations and then people will finally start seeing the true side of religion; money making scam on the poor and stupid.
• sleeper

  

  HitsRus;1256061 wrote:It's already been tried ( hiding behind religion to smoke weed) and it doesn't work.
  http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/12/marijuana-conviction-upheld-religious.html
  
  
  Moreover, if you are going to selectively edit the first amendment because it doesn't fit your atheistic/elitist beliefs, then you are no better than the people in charge today and their attacks on other aspects of the Constitution.

  Selectively edit? You mean like granting religious institutions non-profit status, which is the same as government subsidizing religion? My tax dollars are being forced to support religion. It's a joke.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1256121 wrote:They didn't try hard enough. Whenever I retire, I will spend every dollar in my bank account on getting religious institutions to pay taxes. Without tax free operations, they will be forced to charge money to maintain operations and then people will finally start seeing the true side of religion; money making scam on the poor and stupid.

  You do know that a lot of churches don't even ask for money, right?
  
  Also, there are a lot of churches that would be just fine paying taxes and wouldn't have to "charge" anything. It appears you don't really know what goes on behind the scenes of churches and don't really get the role of money in it.
  

  sleeper;1256122 wrote:Selectively edit? You mean like granting religious institutions non-profit status, which is the same as government subsidizing religion? My tax dollars are being forced to support religion. It's a joke.

  While I don't disagree with allowing them to be tax exempt (taxing religious institution can pretty easily be seen as limiting it ... which IS against the First Amendment), I do disagree with them receiving any tax dollars, but then ... I disagree with most of those kinds of tax dollar uses, because I think those should be built on charity anyway.
  
  My big quibble with the way religious non-profits are run (and I have a background in marketing for religious non-profits) is the watchdog organizations. They are there for the purpose of ensuring that religious non-profits play by the rules, but I know for a fact that the majority of them are sympathetic to the organizations and let them get away with WAY too much. It's a pretty standard example of the fox guarding the hen house.
  
  A perfect example of that would be the ACLJ (a subsidiary of CASE: Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism), which despite it's overwhelmingly political goal, is still granted tax exemption as a religious organization (and donations are, thus, tax deductible). The Sekulows are a smart bunch, and it appears that they know how to work the system rather well. I have a problem with how easily they do it, though.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1256121 wrote:They didn't try hard enough. Whenever I retire, I will spend every dollar in my bank account on getting religious institutions to pay taxes.

  Enjoy your diet of cat food then. It's not happening.
• sleeper

  

  fish82;1256149 wrote:Enjoy your diet of cat food then. It's not happening.

  Small steps, my friend. Religion is the reason for the ills of the world; intolerance, ignorance, and regressive beliefs. Time to grow up.
• sleeper

  

  You do know that a lot of churches don't even ask for money, right?
  
  Also, there are a lot of churches that would be just fine paying taxes and wouldn't have to "charge" anything. It appears you don't really know what goes on behind the scenes of churches and don't really get the role of money in it.

  They don't need to ask for money because they make enough and don't pay a dime of taxes. Getting rid of their unconstitutional tax structure and a majority of them would be forced to charge a fee, putting them rightfully in the same line as Scientology in that they are both cults and they both exploit the poor and stupid for money and influence.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1256163 wrote:Small steps, my friend. Religion is the reason for the ills of the world; intolerance, ignorance, and regressive beliefs. Time to grow up.

  Regarding the "intolerance" part, if a religion did not involve that element, I'm assuming you wouldn't be referencing that religion, then. Is that correct?
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1256167 wrote:Regarding the "intolerance" part, if a religion did not involve that element, I'm assuming you wouldn't be referencing that religion, then. Is that correct?

  Every religion is intolerant.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1256164 wrote:They don't need to ask for money because they make enough and don't pay a dime of taxes.

  Actually, the average "Christian" church in the United States has a mere 85 members, and the average pastor holds a full-time job outside his responsibilities at the church.
  
  One might think their first action might be to ask for it, at least prior to charging it. That would be the most logical progression. However, in the churches where they are on the cusp of not being able to continue, you'll still hear most of them not asking for anything. People typically give because they enjoy it. Not a single church to which I've ever been would even so much as look down on you if you openly didn't give a dime.
  

  sleeper;1256164 wrote:Getting rid of their unconstitutional tax structure and a majority of them would be forced to charge a fee ...

  Actually, most of the "churches" don't receive federal funding. Their subsidiary religious organizations do. Why that's relevant is that the part of their collective entity that serves as "church" in the traditional sense, is already pretty much funded by unrequired, and usually unrequested, donations. It's really no different than a bunch of people in a community pooling their resources to buy a building and pay one of their own enough that he can maintain the building and plan activities for their meetings.
  
  So, if we were to remove the religiosity of the content, does your opinion change?
  
  putting them rightfully in the same line as Scientology in that they are both cults and they both exploit the poor and stupid for money and influence.[/QUOTE]
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1256170 wrote:Every religion is intolerant.

  Hasty generalization fallacy.
• QuakerOats

  I see the thread remains in place. What a disgraceful embarassment.
• Devils Advocate

  

  O-Trap, Thanks for the balanced view. It is refreshing to read a well thought out response.
  
  The reason for the OP is that I do agree with some of it. A seemingly grass roots cause is bastardized by a very vocal minority. The Teapartyban has turned into the tail that wags the dog.
  
  The "dog" is afraid of the very vocal tail. It allows the tail to say absurd and devisive comments that the dog would never say, and not nessesarily believe. but alows the wagging to go on none the less.
  
  This radical response from the "right" illicits a radical response from the "left" and on and on and on......
  
  Unfortunately these days left=right= wrong.
• Devils Advocate

  

  QuakerOats;1256210 wrote:I see the thread remains in place. What a disgraceful embarassment.

  Logically refute the bulk of it and I will ask it to be moved to the basement myself.
  
  The "disgraceful" ( still a religious term ) only proves my point further.
  
  
  Go ahead, give it a whirl Osama Bin Quaker.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1256210 wrote:I see the thread remains in place. What a disgraceful embarassment.

  
  Quaker, it breaks no rules, and frankly, I think it's healthy to engage in discussion over controversial things. I believe our founders did as well, a la the free speech protection, which as a certain politician recently pointed out, was not put into place so we could talk about the weather.
  

  Devils Advocate;1256228 wrote:O-Trap, Thanks for the balanced view. It is refreshing to read a well thought out response.
  
  The reason for the OP is that I do agree with some of it. A seemingly grass roots cause is bastardized by a very vocal minority. The Teapartyban has turned into the tail that wags the dog.
  
  The "dog" is afraid of the very vocal tail. It allows the tail to say absurd and devisive comments that the dog would never say, and not nessesarily believe. but alows the wagging to go on none the less.
  
  This radical response from the "right" illicits a radical response from the "left" and on and on and on......
  
  Unfortunately these days left=right= wrong.

  It's an example of the ravenous hunger for relevance and platforms by the obese creature these "two" parties have become.