Wrong time for Planned Parenthood debate

2

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    Keep in mind that its more complex than "Atheists vs. Christians" - There are plenty of non-atheists who decry Christianists - many of them are Christians!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,781 Senior Member
    We have had a lot of 'hardcore' Christian presidents in the last 200 years, and they haven't re-instituted the Inquisition, yet. Sure, it gives them a bully pulpit to expound their ideas, but most don't to any great extent, and none of them ever convert anyone. What is it that you are so afraid they will do, assuming they are what you say they are (they aren't)? You are discriminating against them, based on your own religious teachings, so how does that make you anything but what you claim they are?

    The leftists are the ones who have trashed religious freedom through legislation and court rulings. If you could understand that, maybe you could convince your neighbors to stop electing people like Gray Davis or 'Moonbeam,' to destroy whatever freedom you have left.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    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%.


    The sheer volume of 'bad' laws that are foisted upon us by our 'leaders' gives lie to that statement. Agreeing with a law doesn't make it a 'good' law any more than disagreeing with one makes it bad. Unfortunately, that is the filter most use these days in order to choose what is good and what is bad. And THAT is why folks are so freaking divided these days. We can't agree on what we can disagree on...we have to force others to submit to our own point of view because it is 'right' and anything else is 'wrong'.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,956 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    The sheer volume of 'bad' laws that are foisted upon us by our 'leaders' gives lie to that statement. Agreeing with a law doesn't make it a 'good' law any more than disagreeing with one makes it bad. Unfortunately, that is the filter most use these days in order to choose what is good and what is bad. And THAT is why folks are so freaking divided these days. We can't agree on what we can disagree on...we have to force others to submit to our own point of view because it is 'right' and anything else is 'wrong'.

    I never said that we had leaders who followed that basic logic. Frankly I haven't seen many for whatever reason (probably because the sort of personality that would seek public office is not the kind of person who would cede the power to control others willingly). However, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't do much better if we elected leaders who based their policy positions on this simple logic. Note it doesn't work perfectly for a lot of things (foreign policy for one example), but it is pretty spot on when it comes to social issues. The magic is precisely that it doesn't matter what you want or believe, all that matters is that you can't/shouldn't be able to make me have to want or believe it. That's the beauty of coming out on the side of freedom. We can disagree all we want, and go do and live however we want, and it's all good. This works much better than trying to come to a consensus and then forcing everyone to live by it don't you think?
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,365 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Okay, just so I know we're on the same page (I think we are), I'm taking 'Christianist' (as Tennmike stated) to be a pejorative aimed at either folks go for the image, but not the lifestyle, or those who DO go for the lifestyle and want to force YOU to do so as well...am I pinging on target?

    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.

    I'll try to answer that bolded part without getting in the quicksand or the tar pit. I will leave out the Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Methodists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Seventh Day Adventists, or Mormons, and focus on the Baptists as they are the large and easy target.

    Regarding Baptists, it's like Baskin Robbins; there's lots of flavors. Some are pretty pushy about wanting to force their views on others, but they are not the majority. Most are the live and let live type; they may not agree with what you are doing, will talk to you about it, but won't shun you because you hold a different view. And they do so because their faith is a personal thing, and living by the Golden Rule is what they try to do. But as individuals, you'll meet all degrees of that, from the laissez-faire to the hard core; just like everybody else who are agnostic, atheist, or some other system of belief. Judging all by an experience with one 'flavor' is small minded.

    The word "Christianist" is, or can be, a term that is both demeaning and a pejorative when used to lump all people of Christian faith into one group. The use of it can be the same as disparaging names applied to other groups of people to belittle and marginalize them, and make them, in one's own mind, of lesser worth. The use of such 'charged' terms can be seen as more than a little hateful, spiteful, and unethical. It's a sure loser to call someone that and then expect a calm and reasonable discussion of anything to follow. Like walking up to someone, calling them a son of a 'bleep', and expecting a cordial reply and stimulating conversation. :tooth:

    I will stop here, because, like the sign says, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here; beyond this point there be dragons."
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    I never said that we had leaders who followed that basic logic. Frankly I haven't seen many for whatever reason (probably because the sort of personality that would seek public office is not the kind of person who would cede the power to control others willingly). However, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't do much better if we elected leaders who based their policy positions on this simple logic. Note it doesn't work perfectly for a lot of things (foreign policy for one example), but it is pretty spot on when it comes to social issues. The magic is precisely that it doesn't matter what you want or believe, all that matters is that you can't/shouldn't be able to make me have to want or believe it. That's the beauty of coming out on the side of freedom. We can disagree all we want, and go do and live however we want, and it's all good. This works much better than trying to come to a consensus and then forcing everyone to live by it don't you think?


    I agree that things probably SHOULD work this way. Good enough?

    The fact that it doesn't now, hasn't before (at least not for a very, very long time) and likely won't in the future is what has me shaking my head in disgust. Face it, the guys on 'your' side want to make me think like you, or at least comply with their demands, and the guys on 'my' side (not sure I have a side) want the same for you...and never the 'twain shall meet.

    Meanwhile, those of us on the outside looking in are picking sides and laying bets. Oh, and beating each other over the head while we wait to see who 'wins'...and somehow we seem not to realize that we ALL lose.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,956 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    I agree that things probably SHOULD work this way. Good enough?

    The fact that it doesn't now, hasn't before (at least not for a very, very long time) and likely won't in the future is what has me shaking my head in disgust. Face it, the guys on 'your' side want to make me think like you, or at least comply with their demands, and the guys on 'my' side (not sure I have a side) want the same for you...and never the 'twain shall meet.

    Meanwhile, those of us on the outside looking in are picking sides and laying bets. Oh, and beating each other over the head while we wait to see who 'wins'...and somehow we seem not to realize that we ALL lose.

    Agreed. Both sides push their own forms of control and there are very few good options for libertarian leaning individuals in either party. It comes down to weighing values and priorities in terms of which you have to compromise to get some of what you want most.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,664 Senior Member
    Awesome.

    "corruption, etc." are the issues that need attention from the candidates"
    "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"
    "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"

    "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." You left out me paying for you to kill your kid.


    So we are all in agreement that federally defunding PP is the right thing to do.

    It is not good for the economy.
    It forces people to pay for something that is against their belief and or moral code.
    It is as corrupt as Scranton PA has ever been. (that town gives the Clintons lessons)

    Zorba Question? If this is your stand "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"
    How do you not find the answer to this? "The bakery thing isn't so clear to me. " or have a problem with " so I think the "Hobby Lobby" SCOTUS decision was wrong and disastrous"
    If the baker wants to turn away customers, they have other places to go. They didnt tell the persons getting hitched that they cant get hitched. They simply said that they wouldnt provide the service because it is against everything they stand for. To disagree with that would be what you want to call Charia. Forcing your belief upon others to your perceived benefit.

    Hobby Lobby says that the employer, a church, does not have to PAY for birth control which they disagree with. In NO WAY does it restrict the employee from using or getting birth control. It is just a service that the church run business does not offer. My company does not offer firearms discounts. Should I sue because or just buy my own if it is important enough to me?

    Picking and choosing where you want to have freedom is why we are in this mess now.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    Varmintmist:

    Yea, you have a point - and that's why I'm unsure about the bakery situation. I stopped having all the answers long ago!

    I have a problem with Hobby Lobby - ARE they a "church"? I don't know - but I don't think so. (???)
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    The word "Christianist" is, or can be, a term that is both demeaning and a pejorative when used to lump all people of Christian faith into one group.

    Just to be clear, I don't apply "Christianist" to ALL Christians - or even "most" Christians, only the ones that act like - well - Christianists! Ditto for Islamists for that matter.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,664 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Varmintmist:

    Yea, you have a point - and that's why I'm unsure about the bakery situation. I stopped having all the answers long ago!

    I have a problem with Hobby Lobby - ARE they a "church"? I don't know - but I don't think so. (???)

    They represented a group of catholic organizations who were being forced to put their money and time into offering a service that was against their moral code. It doesnt really matter if they are a church or not and it doesnt matter that it was birth control. They chose not to provide that perceived benefit to their employees, and the govt was forcing them to provide it. That is enough.


    EDIT: I have found that as long as I strive to remain consistent even when I personally dont like how it adds up, I dont need to have all of the answers.

    EG
    I think drugs are detrimental to the nation as a whole, abused alcohol included, and anyone who uses is a idiot. However, if you are willing to prepurchase a card from Waste Managment so they can toss your corpse in, I can step over you all day long. I now have to pay for your "rehab" and drugs so you can come down from your self imposed sickness and pay for your care? Ummm, no.

    You want to be irresponsible and breed on a regular basis so you go kill the kids you made. I shouldnt be paying for your decision. I dont think you should be doing it, but I sure as Hades shouldnt be forced at the point of a gun to pay for your stupid, nor should I be funding a organization that sells human flesh on the open market, and talks young women into using their service because their whole ideology is to make as many body parts as possible. Their founder was a leader in eugenics that put Joe Mengala to shame and they celebrate that on a daily basis.

    I fully morally support those businesses that put up gun free signs. I do NOT support them financially because they choose to not accept my lifestyle. I guess I can sue them since they are refusing to service me because of what they believe.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,781 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Just to be clear, I don't apply "Christianist" to ALL Christians - or even "most" Christians, only the ones that act like - well - Christianists! Ditto for Islamists for that matter.

    That doesn't exactly answer the question.

    If you are talking about TV evangelists that proselytize and beg for money, I probably would feel the same way - I simply switch channels.

    If you are talking about politicians who answer questions honestly about their faith, they are no different from 3/4 of the people I have been around all my life, and they are no different from any other honest people I know. The overwhelming majority of them do not try to force their faith on anyone, and the ones that do can be switched off easily. On the other hand, they don't deny or run away from their beliefs.

    Regardless of what you may think about GW Bush's success or failure as a president, he was a devout Christian and made no bones about it. He was in for 8 years and didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned or make any executive orders that promoted his religion. He made many references to prayer and faith, but never tried to force his beliefs on any one. This hs been true of every other Christian president, in my lifetime, including JFK and Jimmy Carter.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    People should be free to condemn, criticize, and make jokes about anyone else's religious beliefs. If they happen to be wrong, they will have an eternity to regret their foolishness. Enjoy your "freedom from religion" while you can. Just be aware of the possible consequences. There won't be any atheists in Hell- - - -by then they'll all believe!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    That doesn't exactly answer the question.

    If you are talking about TV evangelists that proselytize and beg for money, I probably would feel the same way - I simply switch channels.

    If you are talking about politicians who answer questions honestly about their faith, they are no different from 3/4 of the people I have been around all my life, and they are no different from any other honest people I know. The overwhelming majority of them do not try to force their faith on anyone, and the ones that do can be switched off easily. On the other hand, they don't deny or run away from their beliefs.

    Regardless of what you may think about GW Bush's success or failure as a president, he was a devout Christian and made no bones about it. He was in for 8 years and didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned or make any executive orders that promoted his religion. He made many references to prayer and faith, but never tried to force his beliefs on any one. This hs been true of every other Christian president, in my lifetime, including JFK and Jimmy Carter.


    :that:
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    That doesn't exactly answer the question.

    If you are talking about TV evangelists that proselytize and beg for money, I probably would feel the same way - I simply switch channels.

    If you are talking about politicians who answer questions honestly about their faith, they are no different from 3/4 of the people I have been around all my life, and they are no different from any other honest people I know. The overwhelming majority of them do not try to force their faith on anyone, and the ones that do can be switched off easily. On the other hand, they don't deny or run away from their beliefs.

    Regardless of what you may think about GW Bush's success or failure as a president, he was a devout Christian and made no bones about it. He was in for 8 years and didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned or make any executive orders that promoted his religion. He made many references to prayer and faith, but never tried to force his beliefs on any one. This hs been true of every other Christian president, in my lifetime, including JFK and Jimmy Carter.

    Look up Patrick Stewart.

    That's all I'm going to say on the subject as I really don't want to get on a rant and hurt anyone here as I see everyone here as a Christian, NOT a Christianist. In other words, you guys are very "cool", and this forum is one of the very few places where discussions like this can be had without it devolving into a chaotic name calling exchange - I value that.

    Stewart was a minor problem, yet symptomatic of problems Chrisitianists cause. There is still considerable religious "discrimination" against non-Christians in this country and the GOP insists on making the problem worse. I personally know at least one person who lost their job because they were non-Christian, and have heard lots more.

    Just to (attempt to) keep my comments "Fair and balanced", Christianity does have a lot to recommend it! I *personally* find the theology to be a bit on the simplistic side, but I could say the same to my Wiccan friends (and many others). Whatever works for the individual - I don't say very much at all about my beliefs as they're very personal to *me*, and that's the way I think it should be. I have problems with evangelicalism as a result - seekers WILL find their answers without it. *shrug*
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,781 Senior Member
    No, just tell me.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,383 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Look up Patrick Stewart.
    Jean-Luc Picard?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,518 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Look up Patrick Stewart.


    Ummmm. Dude in Xmen, Star Trek?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Stewart
    Good actor. I like him.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Look up Patrick Stewart.


    The actor?

    Are you referring to his stance against the Iraq war, his support for assisted suicide, or his support of socialism and membership in the Labour Party?

    Maybe I'm a little dense, (good chance of it, actually) but is this relevant?
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    Ah, my bad. I didn't even think about the actor.

    Here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Stewart_%28soldier%29

    There's more to the story than this, but *apparently* the VA was acting on a comment made by GWB before he was even president.

    This was a ridiculous situation that should have never happened, and certainly shouldn't have needed Americans United to get involved.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,475 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »

    Regardless of what you may think about GW Bush's success or failure as a president, he was a devout Christian and made no bones about it. He was in for 8 years and didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned or make any executive orders that promoted his religion. He made many references to prayer and faith, but never tried to force his beliefs on any one. This has been true of every other Christian president, in my lifetime, including JFK and Jimmy Carter.

    President Bush did, if I recall correctly, advocate for, and eventually secure, federal funds for faith-based after-school programs, especially for inner-city kids. I thought it was a bold, appropriate move.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,038 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    This is a good point worth pondering.
    Since the existence of the USA, what real things have happened good or bad, that were the direct result of the POTUS religious leanings?

    The only big thing I can remember, and I'm not sure it had so much to do with the president at the time, as with the legislature and the general opinion of the people. That was prohibition. And almost predictably it was a MAJOR FLOP!!! And I think America learned a big lesson from this, you can't legislate Morality.

    I agree with bisley about 100% here. And up until Obummer, almost every president has professed to be Christian. Some were more serious about it than others. But remember this, unless he's just an insane religious NUT, he is not going to affect your life one way or another due to his belief. If you listen to your libtard neigbors you will think that every Republican Conservative that has the balls to mention God in a speech is out to convert you to Monk's status. It ain't HAPPENING!!!

    Remember, this country was FOUNDED ON RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES because back then more people actually believed in and had faith in God. But our founding fathers had the foresight to realize that the people shouldn't be strapped to a State Religion and should have the Right to choose what He/She believes. Most of religious leaning or morality issue laws are left to the states. No federal politician wants to get embroiled in a fight over that. And seeing the states usually handle such laws and edicts, since you live in California, the Atheist Capital of this Republic, you should have no fear of Religious interference in your life.

    Now before you hang a sign on my picture of being a Rightwing Religious nut, I like it like it is and I don't vote for people that would attemp to force their views on any of us.. For instance there's a group here in Texas out to do away with the State Lotto. That's an issue about as popular as the plague, because we love to gamble here and the lotto probably keeps us from having a State Income Tax. So it probably isn't going anywhere but in file 13, :tooth:

    I like you and i think you are a great forum member. Other than on this subject (We won't mention dressing as a girl and dancing, HEHEHE) you are a very level headed individual. Just think about this, and lessen your animosity toward candidates that might mention God in a speech and go to church on Sundays. Remember, good God Fearing Conservatives are for True Freedom, not obstructing people's rights.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Ah, my bad. I didn't even think about the actor.

    Here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Stewart_%28soldier%29

    There's more to the story than this, but *apparently* the VA was acting on a comment made by GWB before he was even president.

    This was a ridiculous situation that should have never happened, and certainly shouldn't have needed Americans United to get involved.


    I remember this story. It took a while, but the correct outcome was eventually achieved. I suppose you have citation for the VA acting on comments made by the Texas Governor AT LEAST six years prior to this incident?

    Per your own link, The Wiccan symbol was not one of 38 approved symbols. Your assertion seems to be that the reason it wasn't one of the approved symbols is because of comments "W" made even before becoming president. Why would the VA care what he said as governor, even if he later became president? Does the VA keep files on all the comments made by all politicians, or just the ones who might get to sit in the big chair?

    A follow up question: Since (per your link) there were 38 symbols already approved, did you use any of your indignation to drive you to search out whether or not ANYBODY had ever applied to have the Wiccan symbol on a VA headstone prior to this? With 38 already approved, it doesn't seem like the VA was being all that particular...just sayin'
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    Agree/disagree. My take on it is that this country was founded on ETHICS. Not "principles", not "morals", and not "religion" per se. But that's nits and THANK YOU for *NOT* saying "Judeo-Christian Principles" as many/most of said "principles" are common to ethical people everywhere (Decalogue not withstanding). I'm really big on ETHICS, feeling that same is the only "true way (tm)". I'm QUITE sure I fail miserably...

    Folks like Snake aren't the ones who worry me - but I do wish more people would actually LISTEN to the nutjob's rhetoric and THINK about how it affects non-Christians and the Constitutional principles of "Freedom of religion". I had an interesting talk years ago with an elderly couple who just happened to be Jewish. They were more terrified of "Religious Reich" rhetoric than I am - and I think they have good reason to be so. "Good God Fearing Conservatives are for True Freedom..." - The key word here is "good".

    And will somebody please explain the term "God-Fearing"? Any God, Goddess, angel, spiritual being, whatever that causes me FEAR isn't going to get any truck from me! The only Gods/etc/whatever that I fear are on the "dark side", AKA Lucifer/Satan in the Christian system. Awed? Yes. Feared? No. Isn't there a Christian hymn that goes something like "Our God is an Awesome God"? *That* I can get behind (agree with)!

    I'd forgotten for the moment about GWB's "Faith based" initiative. Bad idea - don't mix tax dollars with religion. That was the one thing I hoped Obummer would do something about, he did not.

    Oh, and I don't dress like a girl - or a boy - but only as myself! :tooth::jester::roll2: I just got my performance pix from the last "Big" performance, I'll have to post a couple just to keep Ned on his toes!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    I remember this story. It took a while, but the correct outcome was eventually achieved. I suppose you have citation for the VA acting on comments made by the Texas Governor AT LEAST six years prior to this incident?

    Per your own link, The Wiccan symbol was not one of 38 approved symbols. Your assertion seems to be that the reason it wasn't one of the approved symbols is because of comments "W" made even before becoming president. Why would the VA care what he said as governor, even if he later became president? Does the VA keep files on all the comments made by all politicians, or just the ones who might get to sit in the big chair?

    A follow up question: Since (per your link) there were 38 symbols already approved, did you use any of your indignation to drive you to search out whether or not ANYBODY had ever applied to have the Wiccan symbol on a VA headstone prior to this? With 38 already approved, it doesn't seem like the VA was being all that particular...just sayin'

    I'm no-longer sure - and too lazy to go back and read the whole sordid history again. AS I RECALL, There were other symbols that had been applied for AFTER the Wiccan flap came up, and had been approved within a "reasonable" time. GWB had made some comment regarding Wiccan circles (worship/services/ritual) on military bases and pretty much denigrated Wicca - *apparently* as I recall, this was taken by the VA as policy.

    Yes, this is a petty example, but it certainly shouldn't have happened, and absolutely shouldn't have happened to a KIA Vet. Its a symptom of an overlying problem.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,038 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Agree/disagree. My take on it is that this country was founded on ETHICS. Not "principles", not "morals", and not "religion" per se. But that's nits and THANK YOU for *NOT* saying "Judeo-Christian Principles" as many/most of said "principles" are common to ethical people everywhere (Decalogue not withstanding). I'm really big on ETHICS, feeling that same is the only "true way (tm)". I'm QUITE sure I fail miserably...

    Folks like Snake aren't the ones who worry me - but I do wish more people would actually LISTEN to the nutjob's rhetoric and THINK about how it affects non-Christians and the Constitutional principles of "Freedom of religion". I had an interesting talk years ago with an elderly couple who just happened to be Jewish. They were more terrified of "Religious Reich" rhetoric than I am - and I think they have good reason to be so. "Good God Fearing Conservatives are for True Freedom..." - The key word here is "good".

    And will somebody please explain the term "God-Fearing"? Any God, Goddess, angel, spiritual being, whatever that causes me FEAR isn't going to get any truck from me! The only Gods/etc/whatever that I fear are on the "dark side", AKA Lucifer/Satan in the Christian system. Awed? Yes. Feared? No. Isn't there a Christian hymn that goes something like "Our God is an Awesome God"? *That* I can get behind (agree with)!

    I'd forgotten for the moment about GWB's "Faith based" initiative. Bad idea - don't mix tax dollars with religion. That was the one thing I hoped Obummer would do something about, he did not.

    Oh, and I don't dress like a girl - or a boy - but only as myself! :tooth::jester::roll2: I just got my performance pix from the last "Big" performance, I'll have to post a couple just to keep Ned on his toes!

    God Fearing has more to do with respect of an all powerful Supreme Being that has the power to do anything he/she wishes. But Christians believe in a loving God and if we are obedient to him we have nothing to fear, or that's the general idea. In other words, Fear is part of a person's motivation for doing what God wants. We don't want be become Sodom and Gomorah.

    If we follow his will we have nothing to fear, but the choice to not follow his will is always there so this fear is always hanging about. So even though we have nothing to fear if we follow his will, we always remember the consequences of not following his will.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I'm no-longer sure - and too lazy to go back and read the whole sordid history again. AS I RECALL, There were other symbols that had been applied for AFTER the Wiccan flap came up, and had been approved within a "reasonable" time. GWB had made some comment regarding Wiccan circles (worship/services/ritual) on military bases and pretty much denigrated Wicca - *apparently* as I recall, this was taken by the VA as policy.

    Yes, this is a petty example, but it certainly shouldn't have happened, and absolutely shouldn't have happened to a KIA Vet. Its a symptom of an overlying problem.


    I'll agree to that...I don't understand why there was a 'flap' at all. We're not talking about a picture of two dogs humping, or Daffy Duck or even a copy of a tattoo or logo of the sports team the deceased liked. We're talking about a religious symbol.

    As to the VA trying to appease the man who would become president? Not buyin it. I'm reasonably certain they wouldn't have given a ripe, red rat's backside what Dear Leader would have said as junior senator of Illinois...and they freaking loved him. "W"?? C'mon man...you're better than that.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    As to the VA trying to appease the man who would become president? Not buyin it. I'm reasonably certain they wouldn't have given a ripe, red rat's backside what Dear Leader would have said as junior senator of Illinois...and they freaking loved him. "W"?? C'mon man...you're better than that.

    I hope you're right - but that leaves the question as to the where/why/how of it. I wasn't there, blah, blah... :blah:
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,823 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    God Fearing has more to do with respect of an all powerful Supreme Being that has the power to do anything he/she wishes. But Christians believe in a loving God and if we are obedient to him we have nothing to fear, or that's the general idea. In other words, Fear is part of a person's motivation for doing what God wants. We don't want be become Sodom and Gomorah.

    If we follow his will we have nothing to fear, but the choice to not follow his will is always there so this fear is always hanging about. So even though we have nothing to fear if we follow his will, we always remember the consequences of not following his will.

    I look at it differently - I am, with utter confidence, aware of "divine love" - and count on it (and have felt it).

    BUT - we were given free will, following rules isn't "it"; "it" is ETHICS. Rules/laws/morals and even principles are (hu)mankind's imperfect attempt to codify the uncodifiable: ETHICS. I'm not much into "obeying", I am very much into ETHICAL treatment of others.

    But that's me - if "God-Fearing" works for you, by all means have at it with my blessing! You're good people there, Snake.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,664 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I'm no-longer sure - and too lazy to go back and read the whole sordid history again. AS I RECALL, There were other symbols that had been applied for AFTER the Wiccan flap came up, and had been approved within a "reasonable" time. GWB had made some comment regarding Wiccan circles (worship/services/ritual) on military bases and pretty much denigrated Wicca - *apparently* as I recall, this was taken by the VA as policy.

    Yes, this is a petty example, but it certainly shouldn't have happened, and absolutely shouldn't have happened to a KIA Vet. Its a symptom of an overlying problem.

    It wasnt in the 38 approved symbols, no matter what GWB said, that wasnt the policy to put the Wiccan symbols on a govt headstone long before he was pres. I would be willing to bet that it took a long time to get it through because the amount of people who took it seriously was around .00005%. Just think about how many goofy things people want on headstones that they have to "just say no" to because soldiers cemetery's would look like a graffiti covered rail yard. Seriously, did you miss the part where he personally apologized to the widow? What a evil christianist to be the most important man in the country and to take the time to personally tell a person who claims to be of a bizarre faith that on behalf of the entire country, he apologizes for something that took time and was no fault of his own, even though he personally believes that "witchcraft is not a religion", per a Good Morning America interview that you assume creates policy. What a rotten guy.
    I would bet that she wasnt invited because she was considered a safety risk by the secret service. That happens when you are engaged in opposing the govt.

    I am all for there being a long term look at adding symbols to headstones of vets. My tax dollars at work, and I dont want to see or eventually get dropped in a hole in a place that looks like it belongs as a set on a 1967 drug induced slasher flick.

    IMHO, you need to start doing the Andy Rooney before you plant your flag on the hill and get the rest of the story, and remember, just because you like it doesnt make it good for all either.

    BTW, you do dress like a girl. It is your choice and as long as I am not forced to support you so you can dress like a girl, I'm OK with it, but when it walks like a duck.....
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.