Home › Main Category › Second Amendment/Politics
bisley
Senior MemberPosts: 10,781 Senior Member
Wrong time for Planned Parenthood debate
bisley
Senior MemberPosts: 10,781 Senior Member
In my opinion, this election needs to be about issues that threaten our existence - immigration, Iran, ISIS, taxes, economy, cyber security, national defense, campaign finance, government corruption, etc.
I am pro-life, I guess, if I had to choose, but as important as that debate is, it does not immediately threaten the entire republic. It can be debated in a non-presidential election year. The lefties are only too happy to have the debate now, to distract from all the issues they have failed so miserably on. I fear that the pro-life movement smells 'blood in the water' because of the Planned Parenthood outrage, and will allow the lefties to make this THE issue. They need to realize that there is also 'blood in the water' on nearly all of the important issues, if they will only take advantage of it.
Now is just not the right time, in my opinion, and the Republican candidates who bite too hard on that issue will go down. One of my favorites, Ted Cruz, is in danger of being a casualty, I think.
I am pro-life, I guess, if I had to choose, but as important as that debate is, it does not immediately threaten the entire republic. It can be debated in a non-presidential election year. The lefties are only too happy to have the debate now, to distract from all the issues they have failed so miserably on. I fear that the pro-life movement smells 'blood in the water' because of the Planned Parenthood outrage, and will allow the lefties to make this THE issue. They need to realize that there is also 'blood in the water' on nearly all of the important issues, if they will only take advantage of it.
Now is just not the right time, in my opinion, and the Republican candidates who bite too hard on that issue will go down. One of my favorites, Ted Cruz, is in danger of being a casualty, I think.
Replies
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
The GOP needs to boot the Christianists OUT - and stick to security and economics (and maybe even FREEDOM?). They WILL, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they continue their usual tactics. I don't agree with the PP thing either, but given the GOP's track record, this issue WILL drive votes away.
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
No offense, but 'booting' folks out will just turn them third party. So much for the party of inclusion, eh?
George Carlin
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
From my side of the fence, this seems like slander, but maybe you'd care to show where I'm wrong? Namely: What problems?
Not looking for a fight, just wonderin'
George Carlin
You have NO idea how wrong you are. A little brush-up study on American history would enlighten on that point.
What the heck is a Chistianist? You've been throwing that word around like it's common talk, but you're the only person I've ever heard use it. Please explain.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Is Christianist a play on the word Islamist?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm kinda one of those, though not a fanatic like those that irritate people like you. I'm an Episcopal only not quite as liberal as Sam. I'm a little more on the fundamentalist side, but I try not to get stupid about it. I really believe in live and let live, but some Atheist and others are attacking us.
One thing, guys like Cruz would probably put those important issues on the top of the heap, but they have to at least pay lip service to their base.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Here's another: "Charia Law".
As for Christianist trouble - there's been PLENTY of it, one of the most disgraceful incidents involved a KIA vet named Patrick Stewart - a simple COMMENT by a Christianist president - BEFORE he was even president - was taken as a directive by the VA, that took about ten years and multiple lawsuits to straighten out. Google's your friend. Of course, there's the whole abortion and gay marriage debacle - things best left to individual conscience but those who will not Mind Their Own Business (tm) want their "Charia" to be the law of the land.
That's not the kind of world I want to live in. We've already had one mono-theistic Dark Age, we sure don't need another.
All this is, of course, my own opinion - but I've been watching these characters ever since I was old enough to be aware such evil existed in the world.
I use the term Christianist to differentiate them from Christians - of whom I've "met" quite a few right here on this board who are reasonable, ethical people.
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Snake - you don't come across to me as a Christianist, but as a Christian. And seems to me that you're a credit to your religion!
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Then deal with those attacks, but religion has no place in politics. In this day and age, as long a vehement bible thumpers dominate a party and use it to promote a theological agenda...that party is hosed.
Is a Christianist anyone with strongly held fundamental biblical beliefs? Read against abortion, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, all that kind of stuff
Or is it someone who holds the previous views, but tries to force these views on you through the power of government.
Christianist has two meanings. One meaning is a follower of Christ. The other meaning is the equal of Islamist and sharia law. One meaning is O.K. and one is pejorative and a slur in the same vein as 'Fundy Christian'.
I've got Zorby's back 100% on this - He'll chime in soon enough, I'm sure, but I'd describe it as the latter. Most of us would agree that "Don't be a , don't hurt anyone, and don't mess with other people's stuff" is enough of a moral code on which to run a melting pot society such as ours. As for strongly held biblical/sectarian beliefs, the Chistianist (or Islamist) can't wrap their brain around the fact that a lot of people don't hold them, even flat out reject them, and DAMN SURE don't want to be governed by them. A common thread running through the minds of many religious kooks is "wouldn't the world be great if everyone else was just like me?" Legislating on that mindset is one step short of stake burnings, IMO.
Of the biblical-based oppositions you list, I would grant that only on abortion is there a leg to stand on for legislating against it, and that comes down to the old debating point of fetal life vs. woman's sovereignty over her own body. The rest of it falls under the heading of M.Y.O.B.
As long as the GOP can't get away from trying to legislate morality, they're going to have a hard time winning the freedom-seeking middle that wants nothing to do with legislation originating in either the Vatican or the Kremlin.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Problem of the last 20-30 years is that the government is injecting themselves in the business of the churches. The separation of church and state should be just that, not unlike oil and water; a clear and unmistakable dividing line . Forcing a minister/preacher to officiate a gay marriage or face a legal battle is one that is coming up. The bakery thing is another. Same for suing a church that won't allow a gay wedding. Forcing one's secular views on people that don't believe in such things is going too far. Destroying them financially is nothing more than vindictive and ill conceived hatred. "Accept me or I will sue into oblivion"; yep, that's a real way to win friends and influence people.
:that:
I'm with the dress wearing Californian, 100%........oh, and I agree with Zorba as well. :tooth:
It annoys me to no end when Christianists start posting the 10 commandments in public buildings - as a for instance. Part of the Decalogue does deal with what I'll call "Universal Ethics" for lack of a better term - but the rest deal with "internal considerations" of Abrahamic, monotheism and as such have no place in the law of the land.
Nuts - I actually agree with a lot of christian "stuff" - I think men and women were made for each other (kinda obvious to me), don't particularly agree with homosexuality. With that said, what other people do is their own business and it isn't up to me to tell them how to live their lives - nor theirs to tell me how to live mine. Blah, blah, blah... :blah:
It is my opinion that an abortion after the first trimester is murder - but that's my OPINION, not something that should be legislated into law. I don't hold with the opinions of SOME sects of Christians that life begins at conception and have ZERO problems with birth control of ANY kind - so I think the "Hobby Lobby" SCOTUS decision was wrong and disastrous - regardless of where one stands on ObamaCare (Which I don't care for either).
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
The bakery thing isn't so clear to me.
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
http://www.gotquestions.org/Judeo-Christian-ethic.html
Question: "What is the Judeo-Christian ethic?"
Answer: The term “Judeo-Christian” refers to something that has its source in the common foundations of Judaism and Christianity. The Bible includes the Jewish Scriptures of the Old Testament, so the moral foundations laid down in Judaism are upheld in Christianity. The first use of the term "Judeo-Christian ethic" was apparently by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1888 book The Antichrist: Curse on Christianity. The early uses of the term "Judeo-Christian ethic" referred to the Jewish roots and identity of the early Christian church, but it wasn't used to speak of a common set of morals until much later.
In 1952, President-elect Dwight Eisenhower, speaking to the Freedoms Foundation in New York, said, "Our sense of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal." This began the modern use of the term in American political and social circles. From Eisenhower's day to the present, the term has become particularly associated with political conservatives in America, though there are much broader applications. In our American military schools, it is commonly taught that the modern rules for war, like the protection of captives and non-combatants, are based on biblical themes. American jurisprudence is firmly based in Judeo-Christian ethics and celebrates that fact with a variety of artwork throughout Washington, D.C. In the House of Representatives there are 23 marble relief portraits of great lawgivers, including Moses, who is given the central point of focus. The sculptures over the main entrance to the Supreme Court building are centered on Moses with the Ten Commandments, and there are several other representations of Moses and the Ten Commandments in various places throughout the building.
Though there are many aspects to the Judeo-Christian ethic, some of the more common ones are the sanctity of human life, personal responsibility, a high regard for marriage, and compassion for others. Much of what is best in Western civilization can be directly attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Historian Thomas Cahill, in pointing out the common themes of Christianity and Judaism, said, “The heart of the Torah is not obedience to regulations about such things as diet—what one may eat, whom one may eat with, how one must prepare oneself beforehand—but to tzedakka, justice like God's Justice, justice toward the downtrodden.” The foundations of the Judeo-Christian ethic can be summarized in the “Golden Rule” which Jesus taught His disciples in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Recommended Resources: Faith of Israel, 2d ed.: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament by William Dumbrell and Logos Bible Software.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
I don't see how alienating Christians who may believe in a stricter interpretation of their religion is politically expedient. They'll continue to vote R, if only by default, so why "cast them out"?
As far as abortion goes, I've posted my arguments before and I stand by them. IMO this is not the hill to plant a flag on in 2015.
If yes, then I can heartily agree with your statement.
Having said that, I also have a problem with folks at the opposite end of the political/social spectrum forcing their beliefs on me.
Pick your morality wisely, or pick it foolishly...no matter what, it's going to be legislated to you from one side or the other.
George Carlin
What's depressing is how the onus seems to be on white evangelicals for "outreach", while minority churches are still allowed to preach as much "hate" as they please, with no media coverage, no repercussions. Not exactly equality, is it?
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
This. At least that is how I would interpret it.
The logic on where to draw the line is simple right or left. If a law forces someone to do something they don't want to do and reasonably should be able to not do (no not paying taxes etc.) or prevents you from doing something that you want to do and should reasonably be able to do because it's not hurting anyone, then it's a bad law. If you use this logic when evaluating policy you'll come out on the right side at least 95% of the time and probably close to 100%.
I would gladly vote for an atheist or a Christian, if I trusted him or her to follow the Constitution and start trying to fix what is very badly broken with actual actions, instead of political rhetoric.