Archive

Tea Party = American Taliban

  • sleeper
    Congress made no law to infringe on your right. It made a law to protect its populace. If that law interferes with your religious need for oppression, then it's circumstantial, as the law was not created in order to impede your ability. Thus, Congress made no law to prohibit the exercise of your religion. Congress made a law without your religion in mind, as it should be.
    And Congress made a law forcing healthcare providers to provide birth control to their customers... They made a law. Time to follow that law.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256408 wrote:And Congress made a law forcing healthcare providers to provide birth control to their customers... They made a law. Time to follow that law.
    Doesn't protect the rights of others, so I don't agree with it, but if it did, I'd agree with you.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256403 wrote:The product is comfort, peace, self-improvement, or any of the other things people are actually seeking when they show up. The price you mentioned cannot be taxed, and there are brilliant men who have apparently "sacrificed their intellects."

    Voting power? Churches that do not violate their non-profit status do not support any politician or political ideology. I've been in both churches that have broken this and churches who haven't. Your wallet is yours, and that which you give is often used to raise money for families going through hardship, given to charities who help the community, or other humanitarian causes. Sound like exploiting to you?
    When you are selling a false product, yes its exploiting. Telling people they are going to go to a bad place if they don't follow these arbitrary rules is exploiting said person. 10% tithing is in the bible as a means to extract wealth from the weak, ignorant beings. Interesting that believers don't think gays should be allowed to marry; I'm sure you'll find some technicality that states that homosexuals getting married infringes on your rights; with no regard that religions are infringing on the beliefs of others.

    The hypocrisy of the believing masses is appalling and the sooner they die and don't reproduce, the better society will be.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256411 wrote:Doesn't protect the rights of others, so I don't agree with it, but if it did, I'd agree with you.
    Like I said, convenient.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256415 wrote:Like I said, convenient.
    Hardly.

    The problem with your religion is not that it breaks an unwarranted law, regardless of whether or not it was established with you in mind. It's that it breaks a law that protects others' rights from being infringed by others' actions, regardless of whether or not it was established with you in mind.

    The only laws that someone who espouses a free society supports are those which protect the rights of its people from being infringed. As such, I don't care if it's your religious or even political ideology that causes you to beat a pregnant teen to death with the claw of a hammer, it violates a law that protects freedom.

    As for your example, you're bringing in additional variables to try to make your point. The government is (or should be) bound by the Constitution as to what laws it makes. Those laws, designed to protect the populace, would trump your own right to exercise religion to the degree that it infringes on their rights, thus breaking the law.

    However, when the government creates laws OUTSIDE the bounds of the Constitution, I find those laws unjust. Religion isn't even a factor in that discussion.

    Not a parallel, so your attempt to prove convenience does anything but.
  • QuakerOats
    I used 'BullSI$' since it is apparent there is no moderation here of any value. It is akin to the hippie culture run amok --- anything goes, including and especially outright lies, disgusting innuendo, and fraudulent commentary. Heck, just put second graders in charge, they too can be programmed to say it's just free speech yada yada yada ....

    No wonder we've lost our culture; no one wants to take a stand for integrity, decency and accuracy; they'd rather hide behind elements of the first amendment and come down in the middle all the time; it's easier. God forbid somebody has to make a judgment.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256425 wrote:Hardly.

    The problem with your religion is not that it breaks an unwarranted law, regardless of whether or not it was established with you in mind. It's that it breaks a law that protects others' rights from being infringed by others' actions, regardless of whether or not it was established with you in mind.

    The only laws that someone who espouses a free society supports are those which protect the rights of its people from being infringed. As such, I don't care if it's your religious or even political ideology that causes you to beat a pregnant teen to death with the claw of a hammer, it violates a law that protects freedom.

    As for your example, you're bringing in additional variables to try to make your point. The government is (or should be) bound by the Constitution as to what laws it makes. Those laws, designed to protect the populace, would trump your own right to exercise religion to the degree that it infringes on their rights, thus breaking the law.

    However, when the government creates laws OUTSIDE the bounds of the Constitution, I find those laws unjust. Religion isn't even a factor in that discussion.

    Not a parallel, so your attempt to prove convenience does anything but.
    The problem with religion is that it's made up. There's nothing stopping me from making up anything I want about religion and then crying foul when its "infringed" on. The only way to stop this is ban religions and bankrupt their fraudulent leaders.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256413 wrote:When you are selling a false product, yes its exploiting.
    And a product is found false by the users. Most goers are getting what they want at a lot of churches.

    It might just be that they're actually getting what they want, and you just don't know much about it. Shocking, I know, but I get a kick out of the illusion of knowledge you appear to have.
    sleeper;1256413 wrote:Telling people they are going to go to a bad place if they don't follow these arbitrary rules is exploiting said person.
    a) Only if that is untrue, and you need to find proof to make an accusation.
    b) Hell, not even all Christian churches do this. Nevermind other religions.
    sleeper;1256413 wrote:10% tithing is in the bible as a means to extract wealth from the weak, ignorant beings.
    Actually, the "tithe" (which literally just means "tenth") was used as a "tax" of sorts by the ancient Hebrew people, and it was carried on as a demonstration of piety by the Jews during the Second Temple period and after. Today, many churches believe that its only use in the church is symbolic, and that it is not a requirement.
    sleeper;1256413 wrote:Interesting that believers don't think gays should be allowed to marry ...
    Lots of them do.
    sleeper;1256413 wrote:I'm sure you'll find some technicality that states that homosexuals getting married infringes on your rights ...
    Nope. I think it's an infringement on rights that they are not permitted to marry. Again, you know far less than you think you do about the Christian community. You vilify them with a brush that actually matches the minority.

    There's that illusion of knowledge that Dr. Hawking was talking about again.
    sleeper;1256413 wrote:... with no regard that religions are infringing on the beliefs of others.
    Nope. Such that that is a person's religious belief, its exercise indeed infringes on the rights of others.
    sleeper;1256413 wrote: The hypocrisy of the believing masses is appalling and the sooner they die and don't reproduce, the better society will be.
    Ah, yes. Those CHRISTIANS are the intolerant ones.
  • sleeper
    Sorry, when I say Christianity I mean mainstream Christianity. It's convenient for believers to make everything up when they are backed into the corner by claiming they don't believe in that tenant of Christianity but believe in another. Convenient.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1256432 wrote:I used 'BullSI$' since it is apparent there is no moderation here of any value.
    Well, since we're letting things go that obviously offend your delicate sensibilities, you could have just said "bullshit."
    QuakerOats;1256432 wrote:It is akin to the hippie culture run amok --- anything goes, including and especially outright lies, disgusting innuendo, and fraudulent commentary.
    Yes, yes. I know. Why have unbridled freedom to engage in topics on our minds when we can have subjective sensibilities that just won't stand for those whose words don't fit our definition of class. How dare they pose a correlation that I don't like! Nevermind that it is nonsense and can easily be explained away. We should silence it and not deal with it!

    Yes, that always works out for the best.
    QuakerOats;1256432 wrote:Heck, just put second graders in charge, they too can be programmed to say it's just free speech yada yada yada ....
    They couldn't likely explain subjectivism and why it cannot be used as objective reality.

    They COULD chalk things up to "common sense," which I used to do when I was 8.

    If you're that offended, you are free to ignore. Hell, you're free to leave. Just because you feel like you're entitled to not being offended by the statements of others doesn't mean they need to, or even should, bend to your subjective whim.
    QuakerOats;1256432 wrote:No wonder we've lost our culture ...
    Yes, yes. The sky is falling because people disagree with you.
    QuakerOats;1256432 wrote:... no one wants to take a stand for integrity, decency and accuracy ...
    You obviously do. So do it. Come on here and explain why what was said was deceptive, indecent, and incorrect. Nobody is stopping you.
    QuakerOats;1256432 wrote:... they'd rather hide behind elements of the first amendment and come down in the middle all the time; it's easier. God forbid somebody has to make a judgment.
    It's not even the First Amendment. There are rules on here that are more restrictive than the First Amendment. What was said violated nothing but subjective sensibilities.

    I'm curious. I didn't see you so outraged when the Ron Paul supporters were called the "Pauliban." Did you raise this much of a stink about "freedom-loving Americans being compared to savages who torture and kill freedom-loving Americans?"
    sleeper;1256438 wrote:The problem with religion is that it's made up.
    Unsubstantiated fact claim. Moving on.
    sleeper;1256438 wrote:There's nothing stopping me from making up anything I want about religion and then crying foul when its "infringed" on.
    Provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, knock yourself out. I don't care.
    sleeper;1256438 wrote:The only way to stop this is ban religions and bankrupt their fraudulent leaders.
    a) Banning religion. Obvious troll.
    b) Bankrupt leaders ... I know several local religious leaders that are nearly broke. I'm sure they're in it for the money, right?
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256451 wrote:Sorry, when I say Christianity I mean mainstream Christianity.
    Translation: When I talk about Christianity, I paint all belief systems under that enormous umbrella the same way as the ones I see on TV.

    Diversity exists withing the belief system labeled "Christianity" such that "mainstream" is virtually impossible to define, sans a VERY few core tenets.
    sleeper;1256451 wrote:It's convenient for believers to make everything up when they are backed into the corner by claiming they don't believe in that tenant of Christianity but believe in another. Convenient.
    1. *tenet

    2. Those things you're referring to aren't tenets of Christianity. They're tenets of belief systems that fit under the umbrella of the term "Christianity." It would be akin to saying fur is a characteristic of mammals. It's a characteristic of some mammals, but not a characteristic of being a mammal itself.
  • jhay78
    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.
    Given that religion was outlawed for most of 20th century Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, what is the atheist's explanation for that paradise?

    As for the thread topic, it's one thing to be passionate and firm in one's political beliefs ; it's totally another to compare your political opponents to the Taliban.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256163 wrote:Religion is the reason for the ills of the world ...
    And believing in the metaphysical is delusional ...
  • jmog
    sleeper;1256348 wrote:LOL. False.

    Non-profits are certainly allowed to keep "profit", but they call it "surplus". They cannot distribute that money to its owners, but they are certainly allowed to keep the money and conveniently raise wages and lavish retirement packages of their employees. I use to work for a non-profit. If you don't think fraud is rampant, then you have no idea how they are actually run.

    Churches are frauds because the product the sell is a placebo. Drug companies would be sued for billions if a heart medicine didn't solve anything but gave its patients(at least the ones who survived) placebos that solved nothing. Churches need to be held accountable for peddling false beliefs and irrational behavior(see 9/11).
    Having been on a financial board of a couple non-profits (one of which was a church), you just proved to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

    A surplus, in a non-profit is only allowed to be carried over for a small amount of time (typically a year or so) in case of hard times (less donations) the next year. No surplus is allowed to be distributed to people working for the non-profit.
  • sleeper
    Pretty sad that our society respects those who hide behind beliefs someone can make up themselves whenever they feel like.
  • jmog
    sleeper;1256451 wrote:Sorry, when I say Christianity I mean mainstream Christianity. It's convenient for believers to make everything up when they are backed into the corner by claiming they don't believe in that tenant of Christianity but believe in another. Convenient.
    What you are labeling as "mainstream" and assuming is a majority really is more accurately the strict fundamentals.

    You will find that a vast number of Christians, such as myself, while believing that homosexuality is wrong, we also believe that those that are homosexuals should be treated no different than everyone else. Therefore they should be allowed to marry.

    Sleeper, you once again, show you really don't know much about what you are talking about and just paint in broad strokes.

    This would be only equaled if I said all liberals were God haters.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256487 wrote:Pretty sad that our society respects those who hide behind beliefs someone can make up themselves whenever they feel like.
    Who said anything about respect? Our society practices tolerance and allows coexistence.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256468 wrote:Translation: When I talk about Christianity, I paint all belief systems under that enormous umbrella the same way as the ones I see on TV.

    Diversity exists withing the belief system labeled "Christianity" such that "mainstream" is virtually impossible to define, sans a VERY few core tenets.



    1. *tenet

    2. Those things you're referring to aren't tenets of Christianity. They're tenets of belief systems that fit under the umbrella of the term "Christianity." It would be akin to saying fur is a characteristic of mammals. It's a characteristic of some mammals, but not a characteristic of being a mammal itself.
    Laughable at best. Truly laughable. How convenient that one can simply disregard certain beliefs of Christianity while maintaining the rest. Ironic that you have to make things up in a made up religion to you can live with yourself and hide behind any criticism by merely saying "Well I don't believe in that part of Christianity".
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256489 wrote:Who said anything about respect? Our society practices tolerance and allows coexistence.
    Correct. See gay marriage.
  • sleeper
    jmog;1256488 wrote:What you are labeling as "mainstream" and assuming is a majority really is more accurately the strict fundamentals.

    You will find that a vast number of Christians, such as myself, while believing that homosexuality is wrong, we also believe that those that are homosexuals should be treated no different than everyone else. Therefore they should be allowed to marry.

    Sleeper, you once again, show you really don't know much about what you are talking about and just paint in broad strokes.

    This would be only equaled if I said all liberals were God haters.
    Like I said, convenient.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256492 wrote:Correct. See gay marriage.
    Do you keep mentioning that because we have common ground there?

    If not, then I don't know what point you're trying to make. That other people practice intolerance in that area? Not sure pointing out common knowledge that adds nothing to the discussion is worthwhile. A lot of people are intolerant of a lot of things, including others with intolerant views.

    Your views on religion are pretty intolerant, but we can coexist so long as you don't act on them.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1256493 wrote:Like I said, convenient.
    Convenient that the majority of people under the "Christian" umbrella aren't the assholes you see protesting funerals?

    Yeah, that sure is convenient alright. :rolleyes:
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256496 wrote:Do you keep mentioning that because we have common ground there?

    If not, then I don't know what point you're trying to make. That other people practice intolerance in that area? Not sure pointing out common knowledge that adds nothing to the discussion is worthwhile. A lot of people are intolerant of a lot of things, including others with intolerant views.

    Your views on religion are pretty intolerant, but we can coexist so long as you don't act on them.
    I will act on them via the legal system. My main motivation in life is to create wealth and to destroy religion. The latter is unlikely without the former.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1256498 wrote:Convenient that the majority of people under the "Christian" umbrella aren't the assholes you see protesting funerals?

    Yeah, that sure is convenient alright. :rolleyes:
    I'm merely using the aggregate. Always the aggregate O-trap, nothing more nothing less.
  • jmog
    Am I the only one that finds it ironic for sleeper, of all people, to complain about religions being intolerant and then in the next post talks about destroying religion? His posts seem like the definition of intolerance.