Explain (or justify) this inconsistency (or hypocrisy):

[TUSooner]

These are seemingly contradictory viewpoints that I have heard expressed by people of the ilk I shall generally and imprecisely refer to as "religious conservatives":

Viewpoint 1: It is right and proper and necesssary for the good of the Nation for Government to exert its power to promote and enforce public morality by (for example) allowing religion to have a prominent role in public policy (including prayer in schools and public gatherings), opposing abortion, opposing homosexuality, opposing drug and alcohol use, and by promoting personal responsibility and whatever else might be called "traditional" or "family" values.

Viewpoint 2: Assisting the poor and disadvantaged is a purely matter of private morality and charity and the Government has no business "redistributing wealth" through social programs and welfare.

How can one aspect of morality require active Government promotion, while another aspect of morality (caring for "the poor" which seems to be an important concern, based on my reading of the Gospels) is off-limits to the Government?

Libertarians: You need not reply, if you would eliminate the incongruity by rejecting Viewpoint 1.
Also, I want to know if my premise is wrong, though I suggest that you cannot reasonably tell me that there's not a whole bunch of people that promote both viewpoints, like maybe the Bachman and Perry crowd and much of the Tea Party.

[Veritas]

I'd like to know the answer to this one as well, although I think I could slightly qualify as holding viewpoint 1. Actually, no, I only oppose abortion out of those things you listed. Never mind.

[sooner_born_1960]

Do we have to hold viewpoint 1 to participate?

[sooner_born_1960]

I ask because I feel the National Government should stay out of everything mentioned in #1, with the possible exception to the abortion question in the event the unborn were afforded civil rights. Those should all be state questions, otherwise.

[jk the sooner fan]

my answer probably wont satisfy your question, but i'll give it a go - i see a difference, albeit slight

Viewpoint 1: I dont think the right has any kind of monopoly here - see the civil rights movement... morality enforced by government. Government has been setting morality laws since the dawn of time....however, with respect to your comment directed at religion (this seems to be what lays in your crawl space since you used the term "ilk" to describe the religious right)....i believe that the government (SCOTUS) has over extended itself in its attempts to remove religion from all walks of life - going far and above what the framers intended with the Freedom of Religion

Viewpoint #2. I agree with the principle of a soft bigotry with low expectations - in that our government has created a welfare class. I'd rather give people a "hand up" then a hand out - and I believe there's enough charitable solutions to many of our social problems that Government seems to screw up. This isnt to say that charity can completely replace the welfare system, but I think many on the right believe that the left intends to capture a voting block thru the bondage of welfare. If you agree with that, even in part - i dont see how you can consider that moralistic

[OUMallen]

I'd like to know the answer to this one as well, although I think I could slightly qualify as holding viewpoint 1. Actually, no, I only oppose abortion out of those things you listed. Never mind.

I don't think anyone is pro-abortion.

[jk the sooner fan]

I don't think anyone is pro-abortion.

except the people doing it or advocating the ability to do it

i dont know how you can even say that.....

[OUMallen]

except the people doing it or advocating the ability to do it

i dont know how you can even say that.....

I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice, but that doesn't make me pro-abortion. I don't LIKE abortions. I don't encourage women to GET abortions.

[jk the sooner fan]

I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice, but that doesn't make me pro-abortion. I don't LIKE abortions. I don't encourage women to GET abortions.

if thats the case, then your moral standard should be against it.....just my opinion.. when you take the position of being ok with others doing it - you're opening the door to allow yourself to be part of it

[TitoMorelli]

Now where the hell did they move the popcorn icon?

[Barry's_Scowl]

except the people doing it or advocating the ability to do it

i dont know how you can even say that.....

Do you not see a difference between a person making a difficult, even regrettable decision and a person who wants to kill the unborn?

[Barry's_Scowl]

if thats the case, then your moral standard should be against it.....just my opinion.. when you take the position of being ok with others doing it - you're opening the door to allow yourself to be part of it

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing. Why can't you personally be against it, but respect the rights of others to choose?

I am personally against smoking, but I don't believe it should be banned, even in restaurants and bars. My choice is that smoking is bad, but I respect the rights of others to make their own decisions.

[OUMallen]

if thats the case, then your moral standard should be against it.....just my opinion.. when you take the position of being ok with others doing it - you're opening the door to allow yourself to be part of it

I would never participate in an abortion, personally. I guess that makes me morally against it? I don't think the government (or I) can or should control people in regard to forcing them into childbirth and rearing.

[jk the sooner fan]

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing. Why can't you personally be against it, but respect the rights of others to choose?

I am personally against smoking, but I don't believe it should be banned, even in restaurants and bars. My choice is that smoking is bad, but I respect the rights of others to make their own decisions.

are you really comparing the choice of an adult smoking tobacco - to the choice of killing an unborn (who has no say in the matter)?

there are other alternatives to abortion - adoption being one of them

but yes, i can see where killing an unborn child would be a difficult and/or regrettable decision

i can also see where its entirely understandable for somebody to stand up for a principle they believe in rather than acquiescing and saying "hey, i dont personally think killing fetuses is ok but i'm perfectly fine if you do"

[jk the sooner fan]

I would never participate in an abortion, personally. I guess that makes me morally against it? I don't think the government (or I) can or should control people in regard to forcing them into childbirth and rearing.

is there anything where you think the government has the right to control people?

[OUMallen]

is there anything where you think the government has the right to control people?

This is a dumb question. What am I, an anarchist?

Of course. But I like that to be as minimal as reasonably possible. And I don't think forcing someone into having a child they don't want/they didn't plan/they can't afford/will ruin their financial well-being and ability to produce within our society), forcing them into 18 years of childrearing, is a good or appropriate use of authority.

I mean, my goodness. The GOVERNMENT is forcing someone into CHILDBIRTH. That idea doesn't offend you?

[OUMallen]

We're not going to figure out abortion in this thread...just wanted you to perhaps think about a more accurate and broader perspective. It's not black and white. It's not "them" and "me".

[jk the sooner fan]

This is a dumb question. What am I, an anarchist?

Of course. But I like that to be as minimal as reasonably possible. And I don't think forcing someone into having a child they don't want/they didn't plan/they can't afford/will ruin their financial well-being and ability to produce within our society), forcing them into 18 years of childrearing, is a good or appropriate use of authority.

I mean, my goodness. The GOVERNMENT is forcing someone into CHILDBIRTH. That idea doesn't offend you?

forcing them in to childbirth? absurd - nobody forced that couple to do the deed - and not every abortion is performed because of a financial inconvenience

its black and white to me - if it isnt for you - then so be it

[jk the sooner fan]

This is a dumb question.

you say dumb question, i say "illustrates a point perfectly"

its really a matter of whats acceptable to you and what isnt - there are some things where you're ok with government stepping in.....killing fetuses is not one of them

[sooner_born_1960]

Good job, TUSooner. You started an abortion debate.

[yermom]

if you want to drown your 6 month old, what right do i have to say how you should rear your children?

on point #2, i think it's part of civil responsibility to the stability of the country. if you just let the poor starve, they aren't going to be very content with the people with money for very long.

you can pretend that people would go out and magically find better/additional jobs to take care of themselves, but i think that's just a fantasy that anything other than a small minority of the population you are concerned about would actually be able to do it

[jk the sooner fan]

when yermom and jk agree on something.......

[sooner_born_1960]

I feel we've all failed to adequately address TUSooner's origianl post.

[KantoSooner]

I am forced to sit out due to libertarian tendencies.

Call me crazy but I hold to the belief that I know better what is the moral course of action for me than does the Department of Motor Vehicles. Or any other government agency.

[Soonerjeepman]

I would never participate in an abortion, personally. I guess that makes me morally against it? I don't think the government (or I) can or should control people in regard to forcing them into childbirth and rearing.

the problem is less than 2% of abortions are because of the suggested NEED for it...rape, incest, etc...abortion is a money maker and if MOST people realized they couldn't have them easily then maybe they would take pro active measure BEFORE they had sex...just sayin.

[sappstuf]

I am forced to sit out due to libertarian tendencies.

Call me crazy but I hold to the belief that I know better what is the moral course of action for me than does the Department of Motor Vehicles. Or any other government agency.

Crazy talk.

[Ike]

We need to shrink government until it is small enough to fit in your bedroom.

[KantoSooner]

Only if said government came in the form of Michelle Bachman in a neoprene bikini and my bedroom was equipped with olive oil showerheads on the ceiling.

yes, yes, I know, but I'm trying to be accomodative here.

[OUMallen]

Oh good gawd, you brought a knife to a gunfight.

I am pro-choice, so that means that I must not think the government ever has a right or need to control our behavior? Give me a physical break.



http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5858/aborshun.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/191/aborshun.gif/)

[OUMallen]

forcing them in to childbirth? absurd - nobody forced that couple to do the deed - and not every abortion is performed because of a financial inconvenience

its black and white to me - if it isnt for you - then so be it

It is forcing them to childbirth. Abortion is currently legal. If you take that away from women, you are thereby coercing them to childbirth and childrearing.

And you want to do it to punish them? To spite them since "nobody forced them to do the deed" so now it's time to force them to carry a baby to term, deliver the baby, pay for everything?

Look, there's no point in debating. I just wanted you to not be a moron and think that pro-choice people are "pro-abotion."

But it looks like there's just no keeping you from being a moron.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread!

[jk the sooner fan]

you can call me a moron all you like...although i think personal attacks are not welcome here

while not a big fancy smart attorney like you - i'm educated.....have been around awhile...i'm comfortable with my opinion

you go on and divide your morals to your own personal convenience all you like......

[SicEmBaylor]

These are seemingly contradictory viewpoints that I have heard expressed by people of the ilk I shall generally and imprecisely refer to as "religious conservatives":

Viewpoint 1: It is right and proper and necesssary for the good of the Nation for Government to exert its power to promote and enforce public morality by (for example) allowing religion to have a prominent role in public policy (including prayer in schools and public gatherings), opposing abortion, opposing homosexuality, opposing drug and alcohol use, and by promoting personal responsibility and whatever else might be called "traditional" or "family" values.

Viewpoint 2: Assisting the poor and disadvantaged is a purely matter of private morality and charity and the Government has no business "redistributing wealth" through social programs and welfare.

How can one aspect of morality require active Government promotion, while another aspect of morality (caring for "the poor" which seems to be an important concern, based on my reading of the Gospels) is off-limits to the Government?

Libertarians: You need not reply, if you would eliminate the incongruity by rejecting Viewpoint 1.
Also, I want to know if my premise is wrong, though I suggest that you cannot reasonably tell me that there's not a whole bunch of people that promote both viewpoints, like maybe the Bachman and Perry crowd and much of the Tea Party.

You said I need not reply, but I'm going to do so anyway. It is, as you say, an inconsistency and a blatant example of hypocrisy. I've asked this question in other forms to my "religious right" friends, but I've never received a satisfactory answer.

Here's my theory: It's a result of people who neither understand nor respect the founding principles of our nation or the Constitution itself. But don't think that this is limited to the religious-right, no sir, there are plenty of ideological inconsistencies on the other side as well. As I've said many times before, however, I'll let liberals police their own.

The religious-right is in the business of legislating morality -- literally. It's an industry. The fact is, there is a lot more money in bilking Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith of First Baptist Church of Smalltown, USA in order to fight the evils of "gay marriage" or "progressive secularism" than there is in using that money to take care of the poor. Gays scare the pocket change out of a lot of Americans. There just isn't the same sense of urgency to fight poverty, and it sure doesn't get the average church goer to write a check like the evils of a secular-progressive society will.

Don't think that I'm advocating government action in either case, because I do not. I'm just saying that the leaders of the religious-right are bilking good people out of their hard earned money not because there is some consistent reason for why government should fight one and not the other but because they want to line their own pants pockets.

[SicEmBaylor]

I ask because I feel the National Government should stay out of everything mentioned in #1, with the possible exception to the abortion question in the event the unborn were afforded civil rights. Those should all be state questions, otherwise.

And you would be correct, but the religous-right isn't demanding that these issues be fought on the state level. No, sir, they're as determined to legislative on the Federal level as their liberal counterparts.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

i believe that the government (SCOTUS) has over extended itself in its attempts to remove religion from all walks of life - going far and above what the framers intended with the Freedom of Religion

Over extended itself? There's no teacher lead prayer in schools and you can't just throw up some 10 commandments statue in a courtroom. Boo ****ity hoo


Those should all be state questions, otherwise.
You would rather be ruled by tyrants 50 miles away than 500 miles away?

[jk the sooner fan]

Over extended itself? There's no teacher lead prayer in schools and you can't just throw up some 10 commandments statue in a courtroom. Boo ****ity hoo




well, jolly good of you to over simplify the SCOTUS rulings on the Freedom of Religion and narrow it down to one single issue......and then to go on and make a grand assumption as to what my opinion is actually directed at

brilliant of you

[OUMallen]

you can call me a moron all you like...although i think personal attacks are not welcome here

while not a big fancy smart attorney like you - i'm educated.....have been around awhile...i'm comfortable with my opinion

you go on and divide your morals to your own personal convenience all you like......

That's actually a great point: you keep your morals to yourself, and I'll do the same. I support that 100%, Judgy McJudgerpants.

I just think it's sad that you're comfortable in your own ignorance. Like you have nothing left to learn? Like none of us do?

You can't even admit this statement is true: most people that are pro-choice as a political philosophy are not actually pro-abortion.

Because all you really had to say was: you know, I guess that makes pretty good sense.

No, instead you say: well, you must be wrong because what you said doesn't comport with my opinion.

That's a child-like analysis on your part.

[jk the sooner fan]

That's actually a great point: you keep your morals to yourself, and I'll do the same. I support that 100%, Judgy McJudgerpants.

i find it funny that you'd have to resort to the ad hominen in what was an otherwise civil discussion

its really a matter of principles - i get that your generation thinks its trendy to "let others do as they wish" - but i'm glad you admitted that there are SOME things that you're ok with the government intervening in

abortion just isnt one of them.....its cool

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

well, jolly good of you to over simplify the SCOTUS rulings on the Freedom of Religion and narrow it down to one single issue......and then to go on and make a grand assumption as to what my opinion is actually directed at

brilliant of you
Is it not the two primary issues people scream and cry about? Sorry for the assumption, what did you mean in the original post?

[SicEmBaylor]

This is a dumb question. What am I, an anarchist?

Of course. But I like that to be as minimal as reasonably possible. And I don't think forcing someone into having a child they don't want/they didn't plan/they can't afford/will ruin their financial well-being and ability to produce within our society), forcing them into 18 years of childrearing, is a good or appropriate use of authority.

I mean, my goodness. The GOVERNMENT is forcing someone into CHILDBIRTH. That idea doesn't offend you?

You're absolutely right as far as the Federal government goes. The Constitution is obviously silent on the issue making it an individual liberty unless and until such time as the individual states legislate on the matter.

Personally, I'm pretty iffy on the issue of abortion. I'm torn between the fact that I consider it to, probably, be horribly immoral. However, I also don't like having my **** stolen or being mugged on the way to my car.

[jk the sooner fan]

That's actually a great point: you keep your morals to yourself, and I'll do the same. I support that 100%, Judgy McJudgerpants.

I just think it's sad that you're comfortable in your own ignorance. Like you have nothing left to learn? Like none of us do?

You can't even admit this statement is true: most people that are pro-choice as a political philosophy are not actually pro-abortion.

Because all you really had to say was: you know, I guess that makes pretty good sense.

No, instead you say: well, you must be wrong because what you said doesn't comport with my opinion.

That's a child-like analysis on your part.

i never said you were wrong - i said i disagreed with you -i said it was my opinion - period, end of story. feel free to disagree - but let me restate it

i personally believe that if you are truly against something - abhor it, detest it, etc etc - then you are either against it in whole - or not.....i liken it to taking a sworn statement during an investigation....if you lie on 10% of it - the rest of it is garbage as well

if you personally can allow yourself to split your moral beliefs up such as that - then thats your deal. i'm simply pointing out another way of looking at things

nothing left to learn? what? you know zero about me - what my education level is - what my upbringing is - what i read/dont read, etc etc.

you think its sad? well then we agree on something, i think its sad you are so vehemently against something, but lack any kind of spine to truly stand up against it when it matters......so you and your spouse (assuming you're married) are against abortion -great - no killed babies in your house - but you're perfectly fine if your neighbor does it

yes, that just screams "i'm against abortion"......thats how i see it. accept it, or dont.

[Veritas]

Shame on me for mentioning the a-word.

Back to topic, can someone else other than Sic'em answer TU's original question?


The religious-right is in the business of legislating morality -- literally. It's an industry. The fact is, there is a lot more money in bilking Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith of First Baptist Church of Smalltown, USA in order to fight the evils of "gay marriage" or "progressive secularism" than there is in using that money to take care of the poor. Gays scare the pocket change out of a lot of Americans. There just isn't the same sense of urgency to fight poverty, and it sure doesn't get the average church goer to write a check like the evils of a secular-progressive society will.
And there you have it. Religion is a business like any other and sex sells. Especially gay sex.

[TUSooner]

Um. Let's just forget I used abortion as an example. Replace it with the Ten Commandments at the courthouse or something. I am asking whether some conservative religious folk are being hypocritical by opposing Government involvment in providing for the poor but favoring favoring Government support of other manifestations of Christian doctrine and morality. (In case you wonder, I think many are very hypocrtical. Duh. :D )

I was expecting someone to say that the poverty issue (Viewpoint 2) is a matter of efficiency. But I tend to be skeptical of that rationale, because not every social program or other government program is mere welfare or a boondogle, and not every private charity is efficient.

My question arose from ruminating on this quote by the original Dr. J, Samuel Johnson (1709-1784): "A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization." By the way, he also said, "Why, Sir, most schemes of political improvement are very laughable things." And this: "No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous."

I believe the Government should support morality in general terms and provide for the poor as much as is practical without encouraging dependence. But I do not want ANY sectarian dogma, even Christian dogma and doctrine that I might agree with, to be jammed down anyone's throat as public policy. (Not every line is a bright one in this area.) If Jesus wanted to start a mere political party he could have done so.

[TUSooner]

I was expecting someone to say that the poverty issue (Viewpoint 2) is a matter of efficiency. But I tend to be skeptical of that rationale, because not every social program or other government program is mere welfare or a boondogle, and not every private charity is efficient.

I also am skeptical because the "efficiency" rational dodges the main question of why (in the eyes of the religious conservatives) the Government can properly support some religious agendas but not others.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Libertarians: You need not reply

http://pearly1000.tripod.com/homer/homer-woohoo.gif

Anyway, the way I see it, the religious in this country don't care about the poor because A. they are poor themselves B. don't give 3/4 of a **** about the poor and use their Christian label as a way to say, "well, I can be a prick to others but I go to church and admit it so that makes it perfectly alright."

As for abortion, I know I'm a dick for bringing it back up, but I personally hate the procedure. I'm all for banning second trimester (unless the mother's life is at risk), third trimester (again unless the mother's life is at risk), and partial birth abortions. I know, most abortions are for dodging responsibility because you couldn't keep your legs together or wrap your junk (statistics clearly show well over half of abortions are because "I'm not ready" or "can't support a child").

"But some people can't afford a child!" Don't have sex then. I love to smoke marijuana but should I get special treatment if I can't afford the lawyer I'll need when I go to court and extra money when I lose my job because of it? I know, abortion isn't illegal and marijuana is but what I'm trying to get at is ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES which has been lost among people in this country. I don't need responsibility, let somebody else do it.

With that said, I am pro-choice when it comes to first trimester abortions. It's the law of the land. Does life begin at conception? I really have no idea. If we knew that answer, with medical evidence, I'm sure you could change the debate. However, the debate still rages on and it won't be solved for a long, long, long time. Is a ball of cells with no heartbeat or brain activity the same as a fully developed human baby? Some would say yes, some would say no, and others just aren't sure. We won't know and until we know exactly the when and how then there will be a debate on this issue and it will continue to be law. Right now, abortion is not considered murder and until it is considered murder, I'd rather have a government that didn't have the power to force you to do, or not do something, than a government that could come in and make you do whatever it feels it needs you to do.

[KantoSooner]

Look, if we're going to keep coming back to abortion, here's a viable dealio:

If you don't 'believe in abortion' (as in who possibly could 'Believe' in abortion? It's like 'alcoholism' what? a 'Belief' in alcohol), then don't have abortions.

but don't impose your moral judgements on others. I doubt if any woman ever, anywhere said, "Gee, I'm bored today, and I'm pregnant. I know! I'll go abort my fetus! Whoppeee!". Those words have never been spoken.

We, as a society, allow many different forms of legally permissible killings of humans. From self defense, to execution, to the military, to cops, to accidents and, yes, in the case of women, under certain rules, the right to make that decision and end the life (or potential life, or whatever your philiosophy tells you a fetus is) within her.

I find it a sad and morally repugnant decision, but not one that I am prepared to arrogate to the state or deny to the woman most intimately involved.

I've known people who had abortions, I've driven them to the clinic. It's never a very happy event. Those who aren't personally involved with the individuals involved in the decision basically need to butt the **** out. You may rest assured that it is never a lightly taken decision and the women who make the choice do far more than you ever can to punish themselves.

[jk the sooner fan]

http://pearly1000.tripod.com/homer/homer-woohoo.gif

Anyway, the way I see it, the religious in this country don't care about the poor because A. they are poor themselves B. don't give 3/4 of a **** about the poor and use their Christian label as a way to say, "well, I can be a prick to others but I go to church and admit it so that makes it perfectly alright."

just curious but exactly how much time do you spend in a church?

[yermom]

and Jesus said "chase that paper, disciples. woe to the crippled and infirmed."

or something like that...

[MR2-Sooner86]

just curious but exactly how much time do you spend in a church?

Up until I was around 18 I went every Wednesday, Sunday morning, and Sunday evening. Not to mention the many lock-ins, picnics, etc. I attended.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

are you really comparing the choice of an adult smoking tobacco - to the choice of killing an unborn (who has no say in the matter)?

there are other alternatives to abortion - adoption being one of them

but yes, i can see where killing an unborn child would be a difficult and/or regrettable decision

i can also see where its entirely understandable for somebody to stand up for a principle they believe in rather than acquiescing and saying "hey, i dont personally think killing fetuses is ok but i'm perfectly fine if you do"

I've heard some advocate making abortions illegal and punishing the doctor who performs the abortion, yet do not advocate punishing the mother of the aborted. Speaking of consistency, it seems to me a position of equating abortion with killing an already-born child would call for charging the mother of the aborted with 1st degree murder. Anti-abortion politicians seem to shy away from this.

[OutlandTrophy]

I just skimmed the thread but are you guys saying that black people should or should not be able to ride in the front of the bus?

[hawaii 5-0]

Should unborn fetuses have rights? If the mother of a fetus smokes does drugs or drinks or doesn't buckle her seatbelt or get enough rest or get adequate prenatal care can she be jailed?

Why not?


5-0


Trump/ Virgil 2012

[yermom]

if a drunk driver kills Mary J. Rottencrotch on the way to get an abortion, is that one count of manslaughter or two?

[SicEmBaylor]

I just skimmed the thread but are you guys saying that black people should or should not be able to ride in the front of the bus?

I vote 'nay. http://www.soonerfans.com/images/icons/obama%20icon.gif

[XingTheRubicon]

Look, if we're going to keep coming back to abortion, here's a viable dealio:

If you don't 'believe in abortion' (as in who possibly could 'Believe' in abortion? It's like 'alcoholism' what? a 'Belief' in alcohol), then don't have abortions.

but don't impose your moral judgements on others. I doubt if any woman ever, anywhere said, "Gee, I'm bored today, and I'm pregnant. I know! I'll go abort my fetus! Whoppeee!". Those words have never been spoken.

We, as a society, allow many different forms of legally permissible killings of humans. From self defense, to execution, to the military, to cops, to accidents and, yes, in the case of women, under certain rules, the right to make that decision and end the life (or potential life, or whatever your philiosophy tells you a fetus is) within her.

I find it a sad and morally repugnant decision, but not one that I am prepared to arrogate to the state or deny to the woman most intimately involved.

I've known people who had abortions, I've driven them to the clinic. It's never a very happy event. Those who aren't personally involved with the individuals involved in the decision basically need to butt the **** out. You may rest assured that it is never a lightly taken decision and the women who make the choice do far more than you ever can to punish themselves.


very well said...

I have a wife and 3 kids, and they're the only 4 people that will ever be subject to my absolute disdain for abortion. One of the R party's biggest weaknesses, is acting like a hypocritical liberal when it comes to abortion.

That half of American voters couldn't tell you what a margin call is or which Iraq war was which, but they can sure recall which party insults their decision making abilities.

[Barry's_Scowl]

I just skimmed the thread but are you guys saying that black people should or should not be able to ride in the front of the bus?

In the first trimester, yes.

[pphilfran]

Should unborn fetuses have rights? If the mother of a fetus smokes does drugs or drinks or doesn't buckle her seatbelt or get enough rest or get adequate prenatal care can she be jailed?

Why not?


5-0


Trump/ Virgil 2012

Mom would be off the hook but the boyfriend beating the chit out of her wouldn't...

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The law covers the "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment. The National Right to Life Committee strongly supported enactment of the law because it achieved other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their own right: The protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and the just punishment of those who harm unborn children while engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.

[JohnnyMack]

Jews don't recognize Jesus as the son of God.

Protestants don't recognize the legitimacy of the Pope.

Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store.

[JohnnyMack]

TU, have you read this:

http://www.libertymulch.org/images/bk_frank_kansas_lg.jpg

In a roundabout way this book addresses what you're talking about.

[Veritas]

This is a good read too, specific to the topic of abortion:
Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War (http://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Right-Conservatives-Abortion-Preface/dp/0520243366), by William Saletan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Saletan)

Also Mack, I've read that book. I'd characterize it as a rather un-objective down-the-nose look at a state that's easy to mock.

[KantoSooner]

Mock Kansas? Impossible!

In order to effectively mock something, the people being mocked have to understand, through your mocking, the idiocy of their ways.

[JohnnyMack]

Also Mack, I've read that book. I'd characterize it as a rather un-objective down-the-nose look at a state that's easy to mock.

No it isn't the deepest or most objective of books, but I'd argue it does do a decent job of illuminating some of the hypocrisies TU alluded to in his original post.

[TUSooner]

I have heard of that book. That's practiaclly the same as reading it, right? :-/

[C&CDean]

I think everyone is missing it here. In my uber-simple way of thinking, back on the original post, it's like this:

1. Doesn't really cost the taxpayers a bunch of $$ if folks pray, folks aren't allowed to get abortions, or if the 10 Commandments are hanging up in Gotebo at the police station. If baby killing becomes illegal, then yes, I suppose some Mengela types will have to actually care for newborns instead of vacuuming out their dismembered little bodies.

2. It costs the taxpayers BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of $$ to give handouts to folks who have learned to scam the system. Are there truly some folks in need who cannot help themselves? I suppose, but if they can walk, talk, drive, poop out babies, lay on the hood of their Cadillac and drink Richard's Wild Irish Rose, read a clock, or just barely have the capability to just sit in a chair and push a button then these folks are employable.

I ain't a member of the "religious right." I don't attend church. I don't find my views hypocritical at all.

[JohnnyMack]

2. It costs the taxpayers BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of $$ to give handouts to folks who have learned to scam the system.

Hang on. Are you talking about Wall Street banks, military contractors or Welfare recipients? Cause it's kinda hard to tell the difference.

[C&CDean]

Uh, yes?

[Breadburner]

Hang on. Are you talking about Wall Street banks, military contractors or Welfare recipients? Cause it's kinda hard to tell the difference.

Fail....

[TUSooner]

I think everyone is missing it here. In my uber-simple way of thinking, back on the original post, it's like this:

1. Doesn't really cost the taxpayers a bunch of $$ if folks pray, folks aren't allowed to get abortions, or if the 10 Commandments are hanging up in Gotebo at the police station. If baby killing becomes illegal, then yes, I suppose some Mengela types will have to actually care for newborns instead of vacuuming out their dismembered little bodies.

2. It costs the taxpayers BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of $$ to give handouts to folks who have learned to scam the system. Are there truly some folks in need who cannot help themselves? I suppose, but if they can walk, talk, drive, poop out babies, lay on the hood of their Cadillac and drink Richard's Wild Irish Rose, read a clock, or just barely have the capability to just sit in a chair and push a button then these folks are employable.

I ain't a member of the "religious right." I don't attend church. I don't find my views hypocritical at all.

I call this the "crass and materialistic" viewpoint from the "irreligious right." :biggrin: At least it has a certain degree of internal logic that purges it of hypocrisy! Tho' billions scammed could refer to a wide variety of people who don't claim to be anything close to poor (as the Resident Infidel suggests in post 65). And yet... it's not the attempt at a religious justification that I've been angling for.

By the way, the new smilies are HORSE S**T.

[C&CDean]

I ain't sure what you just said, but I think it's something like "I heart you lots?"

[TUSooner]

I ain't sure what you just said, but I think it's something like "I heart you lots?"

Yeah, close enough. You know only JM loves you more than I do. (A LOT more, but still....)

[BU BEAR]

These are seemingly contradictory viewpoints that I have heard expressed by people of the ilk I shall generally and imprecisely refer to as "religious conservatives":

Viewpoint 1: It is right and proper and necesssary for the good of the Nation for Government to exert its power to promote and enforce public morality by (for example) allowing religion to have a prominent role in public policy (including prayer in schools and public gatherings), opposing abortion, opposing homosexuality, opposing drug and alcohol use, and by promoting personal responsibility and whatever else might be called "traditional" or "family" values.

Viewpoint 2: Assisting the poor and disadvantaged is a purely matter of private morality and charity and the Government has no business "redistributing wealth" through social programs and welfare.

How can one aspect of morality require active Government promotion, while another aspect of morality (caring for "the poor" which seems to be an important concern, based on my reading of the Gospels) is off-limits to the Government?


The reconciliation of the two viewpoints comes from the idea that the government is better situated to use the power of the sword to restrain and punish evil and immorality than it is to dispense compassion. Moreover, the government is poorly situated to dispense compassion through charity; and its excursion into charity has actually resulted in a less moral and less orderly society.

The government is the right entity to punish immorality because if you have private entities or private citizens punishing what they define as immorality; the result is vigilantism. This leads to an unjust and disorderly society. However, when the government properly defines morality and restrains/punishes immorality; then the opposite effect is achieved. The state, through the force inherent to governmental bodies, promotes a stable and orderly society.

However, the government--when it gets involved in the charity/compassion business--does not do a good job of promoting morality or accountability. This is because the government does not place stringent moral stipulations on the receipt of government benefits; additionally, the government does not closely monitor the recipients of benefits to see if the recipient is making progress toward improving their situation. Private charities, such as churches, can place moral restrictions on the receipt of aid. For example, a church can tell those who receive aid that a condition to continued aid is to stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, telling the recipient that certain issues must be addressed in the way he treats his family, stop having babies out of wedlock, etc...

It is very hard for the governmental entities to place the same level of moral conditions on benefit recipients--I suspect this is largely due to the bureaucratic nature of the programs and the relatively disinterested view that agency workers take toward benefit recipients. Private charities are smaller and more nimble; and accordingly, private charities can customize a plan to help each recipient address the underlying cause for his/her need. Hence, private charities are more effective than the government at promoting public morality through aid programs.

We need only look at what spending over $1 trillion over the past 40+ years on the Great Society has gotten us: a virtually unchanged poverty rate; higher incidences of unwed mothers; lower instances of employment for several demographic groups. There seems to be no link between government "assistance" and the alleviation of poverty; but there may be a link between governmental assistance and lower morality (more births out of wedlock) and lower productivity (lower employment in certain demographic groups).

Quite simply put: A more moral and orderly society is produced when (a) the government properly defines morality and provides effective and consistent enforcement of that morality and (b) private charity dispenses compassion and places proper moral restrictions on the recipient of the private charity's assistance.

[jk the sooner fan]

The reconciliation of the two viewpoints comes from the idea that the government is better situated to use the power of the sword to restrain and punish evil and immorality than it is to dispense compassion. Moreover, the government is poorly situated to dispense compassion through charity; and its excursion into charity has actually resulted in a less moral and less orderly society.

The government is the right entity to punish immorality because if you have private entities or private citizens punishing what they define as immorality; the result is vigilantism. This leads to an unjust and disorderly society. However, when the government properly defines morality and restrains/punishes immorality; then the opposite effect is achieved. The state, through the force inherent to governmental bodies, promotes a stable and orderly society.

However, the government--when it gets involved in the charity/compassion business--does not do a good job of promoting morality or accountability. This is because the government does not place stringent moral stipulations on the receipt of government benefits; additionally, the government does not closely monitor the recipients of benefits to see if the recipient is making progress toward improving their situation. Private charities, such as churches, can place moral restrictions on the receipt of aid. For example, a church can tell those who receive aid that a condition to continued aid is to stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, telling the recipient that certain issues must be addressed in the way he treats his family, stop having babies out of wedlock, etc...

It is very hard for the governmental entities to place the same level of moral conditions on benefit recipients--I suspect this is largely due to the bureaucratic nature of the programs and the relatively disinterested view that agency workers take toward benefit recipients. Private charities are smaller and more nimble; and accordingly, private charities can customize a plan to help each recipient address the underlying cause for his/her need. Hence, private charities are more effective than the government at promoting public morality through aid programs.

We need only look at what spending over $1 trillion over the past 40+ years on the Great Society has gotten us: a virtually unchanged poverty rate; higher incidences of unwed mothers; lower instances of employment for several demographic groups. There seems to be no link between government "assistance" and the alleviation of poverty; but there may be a link between governmental assistance and lower morality (more births out of wedlock) and lower productivity (lower employment in certain demographic groups).

Quite simply put: A more moral and orderly society is produced when (a) the government properly defines morality and provides effective and consistent enforcement of that morality and (b) private charity dispenses compassion and places proper moral restrictions on the recipient of the private charity's assistance.

brilliant

[TUSooner]

The reconciliation of the two viewpoints comes from the idea that the government is better situated to use the power of the sword to restrain and punish evil and immorality than it is to dispense compassion. Moreover, the government is poorly situated to dispense compassion through charity; and its excursion into charity has actually resulted in a less moral and less orderly society.

The government is the right entity to punish immorality because if you have private entities or private citizens punishing what they define as immorality; the result is vigilantism. This leads to an unjust and disorderly society. However, when the government properly defines morality and restrains/punishes immorality; then the opposite effect is achieved. The state, through the force inherent to governmental bodies, promotes a stable and orderly society.

However, the government--when it gets involved in the charity/compassion business--does not do a good job of promoting morality or accountability. This is because the government does not place stringent moral stipulations on the receipt of government benefits; additionally, the government does not closely monitor the recipients of benefits to see if the recipient is making progress toward improving their situation. Private charities, such as churches, can place moral restrictions on the receipt of aid. For example, a church can tell those who receive aid that a condition to continued aid is to stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, telling the recipient that certain issues must be addressed in the way he treats his family, stop having babies out of wedlock, etc...

It is very hard for the governmental entities to place the same level of moral conditions on benefit recipients--I suspect this is largely due to the bureaucratic nature of the programs and the relatively disinterested view that agency workers take toward benefit recipients. Private charities are smaller and more nimble; and accordingly, private charities can customize a plan to help each recipient address the underlying cause for his/her need. Hence, private charities are more effective than the government at promoting public morality through aid programs.

We need only look at what spending over $1 trillion over the past 40+ years on the Great Society has gotten us: a virtually unchanged poverty rate; higher incidences of unwed mothers; lower instances of employment for several demographic groups. There seems to be no link between government "assistance" and the alleviation of poverty; but there may be a link between governmental assistance and lower morality (more births out of wedlock) and lower productivity (lower employment in certain demographic groups).

Quite simply put: A more moral and orderly society is produced when (a) the government properly defines morality and provides effective and consistent enforcement of that morality and (b) private charity dispenses compassion and places proper moral restrictions on the recipient of the private charity's assistance.

Not a bad political argument based on utility. However, the idea that Government should use "the sword" to punish immorality and impose order is not new at all or, in modern times, even overtly religious. Certainly it's not exclusively Christian. Nor is it the same as the more distrinctly religious intrusions of which I am thinking. Again, I have been looking for more of a religious argument for what I see as this sort of thinking: "Jesus tells me I can to use the sword of the State to enforce the 'righteousness' of creeds and dogma and public piety, but He says don't use the purse of the State to affect the righteousess of charity." That said, yours is probably as good an answer as I'm going to get, along with Dean's coarser one (I jest not). The bottom line may be that there is no religious justification for the dichotomy and --more significantly -- that no religious justification is really wanted (except hypocritically). I just hate to see the political argument dressed in the sanctimony of the Bible Thumpers, or the sword wielded in the name of the Gospel, for that matter.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Jesus is a ninja.

He chops up poor people and saves babies.

[JohnnyMack]

It's funny that the religious right can't stand the idea of the dirty mooslims bringing sharia law to our shores, but has no problem inserting their dogma into the political structure of these united states.

[sooner_born_1960]

My answer would have been as long, but I thought there was a time limit.

[BU BEAR]

Not a bad political argument based on utility. However, the idea that Government should use "the sword" to punish immorality and impose order is not new at all or, in modern times, even overtly religious. Certainly it's not exclusively Christian. Nor is it the same as the more distrinctly religious intrusions of which I am thinking. Again, I have been looking for more of a religious argument for what I see as this sort of thinking: "Jesus tells me I can to use the sword of the State to enforce the 'righteousness' of creeds and dogma and public piety, but He says don't use the purse of the State to affect the righteousess of charity." That said, yours is probably as good an answer as I'm going to get, along with Dean's coarser one (I jest not). The bottom line may be that there is no religious justification for the dichotomy and --more significantly -- that no religious justification is really wanted (except hypocritically). I just hate to see the political argument dressed in the sanctimony of the Bible Thumpers, or the sword wielded in the name of the Gospel, for that matter.

Certainly, the state using its coercive power to: (a) take money from the taxpayers' pockets; (b) crowd out private charities; and (c) produce results that are contra-moral and counterproductive seems to be immoral. Said differently, it is immoral for the state to continue programs that its knows or strongly suspects result in more out-of-wedlock births and lower productivity. This is especially true when private charities can produce better results, but are crowded out by the government occupying the field.

I think that your stated desire to see a sort of religio-legal-political response framed from New Testament scripture has effectively set this thread up so that you get no response that is satisfactory to you. The New Testament is simply not a political or legal text. The NT does not contain a well-defined legal or political system which makes it difficult to frame a legal or political response using NT text.

However, a lot of what we define as moral and thus subject to government punishment or coercion does come from Biblical thought and Judeo-Christian values. I think that is probably your disagreement--you do not see abortion as a moral issue. Conservative Christians will see abortion, illegal drugs, etc... as moral issues that should be restrained and punished by the government.

[Fraggle145]

Shame on me for mentioning the a-word.

Back to topic, can someone else other than Sic'em answer TU's original question?


And there you have it. Religion is a business like any other and sex sells. Especially gay sex.

And that's why they should have to pay taxes too.

[TUSooner]

Certainly, the state using its coercive power to: (a) take money from the taxpayers' pockets; (b) crowd out private charities; and (c) produce results that are contra-moral and counterproductive seems to be immoral. Said differently, it is immoral for the state to continue programs that its knows or strongly suspects result in more out-of-wedlock births and lower productivity. This is especially true when private charities can produce better results, but are crowded out by the government occupying the field.

I think that your stated desire to see a sort of religio-legal-political response framed from New Testament scripture has effectively set this thread up so that you get no response that is satisfactory to you. That may have been your intent. However, a lot of what we define as moral and thus subject to government punishment or coercion does come from Biblical thought. I think that is probably your disagreement--you do not see abortion as a moral issue. Conservative Christians will see abortion, illegal drugs, etc... as moral issues that should be restrained and punished by the government.

Ah so. Good post. But you're a ringer for the rug-chewers! :biggrin:
I can't quite agree 100% with your blanket condemnation of "immoral" Government "charity," because it might take the form of public works or other programs other than the lamentable and injurious war on poverty and similar welfare programs that are very easy to condemn. But I'll accept your answer (until I think of something wrong with it later. :wink: ) My question was a narrow one that wasn't likely to produce an acceptable answer. But you have done very well to provide a very thoughtful answer, despite that. If I were wearing a hat I would tip it for you.

[JohnnyMack]

Certainly, the state using its coercive power to: (a) take money from the taxpayers' pockets; (b) crowd out private charities; and (c) produce results that are contra-moral and counterproductive seems to be immoral. Said differently, it is immoral for the state to continue programs that its knows or strongly suspects result in more out-of-wedlock births and lower productivity. This is especially true when private charities can produce better results, but are crowded out by the government occupying the field.

I think that your stated desire to see a sort of religio-legal-political response framed from New Testament scripture has effectively set this thread up so that you get no response that is satisfactory to you. That may have been your intent. However, a lot of what we define as moral and thus subject to government punishment or coercion does come from Biblical thought. I think that is probably your disagreement--you do not see abortion as a moral issue. Conservative Christians will see abortion, illegal drugs, etc... as moral issues that should be restrained and punished by the government.

I'll add that I think the secular side has done a terrible job in terms of PR. It has failed to offer itself up as a solid alternative to organized religion and it has failed to spend its time and resources in offering to help those who need it and has instead worked at tearing down religion. It's my belief that religion will make itself irrelevant in due time as people realize that christianity doesn't have an exclusive right to promote morality. Atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. That's not to say that it's up to a government to exclusively promote the welfare of its citizens, rather secular charity groups should emerge as healthy competition to antiquated mythologies that are simply culturally ingrained in our psyche.

[BU BEAR]

I'll add that I think the secular side has done a terrible job in terms of PR. It has failed to offer itself up as a solid alternative to organized religion and it has failed to spend its time and resources in offering to help those who need it and has instead worked at tearing down religion. It's my belief that religion will make itself irrelevant in due time as people realize that christianity doesn't have an exclusive right to promote morality. Atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. That's not to say that it's up to a government to exclusively promote the welfare of its citizens, rather secular charity groups should emerge as healthy competition to antiquated mythologies that are simply culturally ingrained in our psyche.

You, as an atheist, can promote morality all you want. I hope you do so; and I hope that your values overlap with Judeo-Christian values. But even more than that, I hope you realize that there is a life beyond this one and a Creator to whom you will be accountable. This why religion and specifically Christianity will not be made irrelevant anytime soon: the overwhelming majority of humanity believes that there is life after this one. Christianity explains that provision has already been made for our moral failures provided that we accept Jesus' love and sacrifice and that we demonstrate this belief by following His commands.

The only way that religion is made irrelevant is by demonstrating that there is no life after this one. Good luck on proving the negative. BTW, "religion" does not have to prove the existence of the afterlife because that is what people already believe. For religion to become irrelevant, it is the atheists and secularists who will have to dislodge that notion.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I want to dislodge Johnny Mack's notion at the tailgate.

[BU BEAR]

I want to dislodge Johnny Mack's notion at the tailgate.

I bet he is fun times! Seems like a nice guy. Speaking of football, which I do not really follow save for a small Texas high school team, what is the state of the Conference this year and next? Who are the teams this year? And in 2012?

[JohnnyMack]

I want to dislodge Johnny Mack's notion at the tailgate.

A/S/L?

[JohnnyMack]

You, as an atheist, can promote morality all you want. I hope you do so; and I hope that your values overlap with Judeo-Christian values. But even more than that, I hope you realize that there is a life beyond this one and a Creator to whom you will be accountable. This why religion and specifically Christianity will not be made irrelevant anytime soon: the overwhelming majority of humanity believes that there is life after this one. Christianity explains that provision has already been made for our moral failures provided that we accept Jesus' love and sacrifice and that we demonstrate this belief by following His commands.

The only way that religion is made irrelevant is by demonstrating that there is no life after this one. Good luck on proving the negative. BTW, "religion" does not have to prove the existence of the afterlife because that is what people already believe. For religion to become irrelevant, it is the atheists and secularists who will have to dislodge that notion.

I'll never believe that I was born flawed.

And the rates of theism are plummeting all across Europe and are also on the decline in the U.S. It's only a matter of time before science replaces myth.

[BU BEAR]

I'll never believe that I was born flawed.

And the rates of theism are plummeting all across Europe and are also on the decline in the U.S. It's only a matter of time before science replaces myth.

You do not have to believe that you were born flawed to know that you are not perfect. I do not believe that man is born a corrupt individual, but I do know that it is not long before he gets corrupted. This probably flies in the face of the Church's traditional teaching on Original Sin, but I am not too sure that the concept is Biblical in the first place.

[okie52]

I'll never believe that I was born flawed.

And the rates of theism are plummeting all across Europe and are also on the decline in the U.S. It's only a matter of time before science replaces myth.

Whenever "science" can prove there is no "God" count me in. Will that come before or after science proves ethanol is viable?

[SicEmBaylor]

You do not have to believe that you were born flawed to know that you are not perfect. I do not believe that man is born a corrupt individual, but I do know that it is not long before he gets corrupted. This probably flies in the face of the Church's traditional teaching on Original Sin, but I am not too sure that the concept is Biblical in the first place.

Nobody is born corrupt. That is nonsense. Man (in the generic sense ladies) becomes corrupt to various degrees and in different ways based on how they were raised, who raised them, where they were raised, decisions made, not made, etc. The experience of each person determines what kind of person they are or will be.

God created man and gave him the gift of intelligence, free-will, logic, etc. He created the universe and the Earth with an untold number of mysteries and puzzles and blessed man with certain abilities that allow us to solve those mysteries and puzzles. To me, the way to become closer to God is not through ridiculous notions of prayer, going to church, abiding by ridiculous church doctrines or superstitions. The way to become closer to God is through science. By learning why and how God created the things he did we gain a greater understanding for how God thinks and what God wants. That's truly the way to become closer to God.

A week at Young Astronauts gets you closer to God than a week at Falls Creek.

[/deist rant]

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

(abortion) I don't think the government (or I) can or should control people in regard to FORCING THEM INTO CHILDBIRTH and rearing.How does your mind work? ie do you know why that girl is pregnant? Are you saying the govt. made her do that sex thing?...and do you know that abortion is murder, which is highly illegal if done outside the womb?

[C&CDean]

It's funny that the religious right can't stand the idea of the dirty mooslims bringing sharia law to our shores, but has no problem inserting their dogma into the political structure of these united states.

Every once in a while you seriously step all over your little peeeeenis. This would be one of those times.

God, not moohamid, is everywhere in the "political structure of these united states" since the inception of "these united states."

I ain't even sure you have a point here. Sharia law? Last time I checked, saying "one nation, under God" is not the same as stoning your daughter to death for sucking an infidel's dick, no? Major fail John, MAJOR. How about you check your God hate in for a half-a-brain next time. Thanx in advance.

[soonercruiser]

The old rule.....
"follow the money"!

[JohnnyMack]

Every once in a while you seriously step all over your little peeeeenis. This would be one of those times.

God, not moohamid, is everywhere in the "political structure of these united states" since the inception of "these united states."

I ain't even sure you have a point here. Sharia law? Last time I checked, saying "one nation, under God" is not the same as stoning your daughter to death for sucking an infidel's dick, no? Major fail John, MAJOR. How about you check your God hate in for a half-a-brain next time. Thanx in advance.

I do not agree with you. I think if you give the Christian's in this country an inch they'll take a mile. It's the untrusting, cynical side of me.

[BU BEAR]

I do not agree with you. I think if you give the Christian's in this country an inch they'll take a mile. It's the untrusting, cynical side of me.

What are you talking about?

[JohnnyMack]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking in a purely hypothetical sense about allowing a special interest group (in this case christians) special favor with the government. If you were to begin implementing policy that was christian-centric it would grow into something larger than what was originally intended. For a point of reference see: everything the federal government has ever touched.

[BU BEAR]

I'm talking in a purely hypothetical sense about allowing a special interest group (in this case christians) special favor with the government. If you were to begin implementing policy that was christian-centric it would grow into something larger than what was originally intended. For a point of reference see: everything the federal government has ever touched.

I see. A non-existent boogie man.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seems like a lot of folks on the Left have a bigger fear of a non-existent Christian imposition than they do of the Islamist jihhad, which is a mind-blower for me, since jihhad is a lot more harmful (death) than some theoretical imposition of morals, and IS REAL, not theoretical.

[JohnnyMack]

Seems like a lot of folks on the Left have a bigger fear of a non-existent Christian imposition than they do of the Islamist jihhad, which is a mind-blower for me, since jihhad is a lot more harmful (death) than some theoretical imposition of morals, and IS REAL, not theoretical.

I for one think they're all poopy heads who need to wake up and smell what Sagan and Hawking are cooking.

[JohnnyMack]

I see. A non-existent boogie man.

A slippery slope rather. Given the governments deplorable track record at the concept of restraint.

[soonercruiser]

I'll never believe that I was born flawed.

And the rates of theism are plummeting all across Europe and are also on the decline in the U.S. It's only a matter of time before science replaces myth.

Hey!
And how's societal stability, wealth, standard of living, and freedom doing in Europe?
EXACTLY!

[JohnnyMack]

Hey!
And how's societal stability, wealth, standard of living, and freedom doing in Europe?
EXACTLY!

Because Jesus wants u to be rich?

http://bp1.blogger.com/_uonCQ0rSOwE/R3e5hahjRNI/AAAAAAAAACM/CdNf2prn24w/s320/jesus.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

I bet he is fun times! Seems like a nice guy. Speaking of football, which I do not really follow save for a small Texas high school team, what is the state of the Conference this year and next? Who are the teams this year? And in 2012?
http://linuxmafia.com/pub/humour/implied-facepalm.jpg

[ByngSooner]

I for one think they're all poopy heads who need to wake up and smell what Sagan and Hawking are cooking.

If you are using Sagan as a role model for idealistic thinking that says a lot.

There are many credible, intelligent physicists --and other scientists --who believe in a Creator.

Don't try to make it sound like everyone who believes in God has an IQ of 60.

Not all Christians fit the derogatory little box you've put them in.

[JohnnyMack]

If you are using Sagan as a role model for idealistic thinking that says a lot.

There are many credible, intelligent physicists --and other scientists --who believe in a Creator.

Don't try to make it sound like everyone who believes in God has an IQ of 60.

Not all Christians fit the derogatory little box you've put them in.

Nanny-nanny boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo.

[JohnnyMack]

If you are using Sagan as a role model for idealistic thinking that says a lot.


Carl Sagan was one of the most amazing minds to have existed.


The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity

-Carl Sagan

[okie52]

Carl Sagan was one of the most amazing minds to have existed.

Do you pray to him?

[JohnnyMack]

Do you pray to him?

Only deity I recognize and/or pray to is this man:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UxvtuHKCUqQ/SwHqary347I/AAAAAAAAAUw/supaXRujsKg/s1600/bob-stoops-p1.jpg

[okie52]

Only deity I recognize and/or pray to is this man:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UxvtuHKCUqQ/SwHqary347I/AAAAAAAAAUw/supaXRujsKg/s1600/bob-stoops-p1.jpg

Amen.

[XingTheRubicon]

So you're saying that Bob Stoops can hit a curve ball

[C&CDean]

JM can fall into a bucket of **** and come out smelling like a ****ing rose every time. Nice jorb John.

[JohnnyMack]

JM can fall into a bucket of **** and come out smelling like a ****ing rose every time. Nice jorb John.

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/images/h/haters_gonna_hate_panda-14278.jpg