Take this to the religious board
Posted By: see message on 2008-11-09
In Reply to: Thank God Obama won! - Mrs. M
Many of us do not believe that. Many on the religious board do not believe that, but this is a religious statment. Show me the proof of what you just said.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Politics board = political topics. Faith board = religious topics.
Please keep all religious/faith topics and discussions on the Faith board. This would involve your beliefs, whether Christian or atheist, etc.
The Politics board is strictly for political topics and discussions.
Moderator
No, not a religious board.
I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin.
Silence. Did everyone go to the religious board?nm
x
Take religious topics to Faith board. NM
NM
So you and your buds bash us on *your* board and suddenly, once you reach this board,
some respect?
You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*
Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.
You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.
That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS. Your posts don't show respect. They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.
You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?
Please. Some of us aren't as stupid as you think we are.
You're becoming quite a bore. You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight. You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board. Maybe that should work both ways.
Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all. You believe in SUPERIORITY. Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else. Sheesh! You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.
You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred.
In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate. I've seen them. (I hope you don't chase them away, too.) But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.
Talk about stench. Just read your very own posts.
Can we bring the board back to the true reason for the board
Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board – to share opinions of why we like our candidate. Not bash and cut down others because they don’t agree with you.
I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc. After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come. Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.
I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates. What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board. Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin. You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this “Geez, I’m allowed to have an opinion”.
Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin. The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby. Talk about just bizarre comments. I thought what’s next, she’s an alien from another planet? The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre. Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations. I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.
I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam. Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. I’ve read “Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away”, “Sam, please let me know where you work” or “she must have her quota” or “sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the” This childish rhetoric is getting old. I’m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics. If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate “fight and degrade” section.
I’ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming. She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn’t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good. Let people express his or her opinion and move on. If you don’t like someone just ignore that person. “It’s not rocket science, you know” (I liked that statement) 
I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right. If you don’t agree with something and you post that you don’t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that’s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.
I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates. That is how I’m learning about each one, but I don’t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason. I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.
If you like to fight so much why don’t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face.
Your on the wrong board - you need to preach on the faith board
You just delivered a sermon (or quote). Either way it doesn't belong here. What does this have to do with politics. The democrat and republican party did not start up until after the 1800s. Socialism also wasn't created until the 1800s.
To me your post describes the way humans should treat other humans. This has nothing to do with politics - imho.
Because you posted on the Main board not Politics board.
It was removed, as we do not have an option of moving from Main to Politics.
This could have easily been avoided had you posted on the correct board.
The response from another poster to not post political viewpoints on this board was becuase you posted it on the Main board.
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right. If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies.
If Coulter is so religious...
...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends?
What is a religious wacko?
Someone who believes that a fetus is a human being? Your label "religious wacko" is very disrespectful and unkind. I am pro-life and I am not mentally unstable.
Like it or not, the fight to protect the unborn will NEVER EVER stop.
A religious wacko is...
Someone who does not understand the separation between church and state, that freedom of relgion also means freedom FROM religion, sees nothing wrong with imposing/ legislating their own religious beliefs and values on everyone else, goes bannas whenever anybody disagrees with them, and would just as soon replace our democratic system with Christian theocracy.
Can we say religious whacko.....
xx
I am not even religious. I like Palin because she is
nm
Religious Right has already messed up too much in this
and the rest of the misguided 'faithful' to step out of the picture so that our leaders can actually do their jobs, without all the holy rollers tripping them up.
Religious freedom.
dd
You don't have to be religious to be hated by
xx
This was not a religious post, but..(sm)
since you mentioned it, it is actually possible to have hope without God. Athiests represent only a small portion of the general public as well as Obama supporters. Your post assumes that everyone who supports Obama must be athiest. You might want to revise that one. LOL.
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
Religious hierarchy...
I wonder what they call the homosexual henchmen who try to browbeat everyone who doesn't love and accept their behavior?
I am not even religious. Take your useless
nm
Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--
Do you actually believe only religious people think
--
Many religious people are pro-choice.
.
I SAID most religious people...I did NOT say most Christians.
You guys don't rule the world, ya know. Just your little corner...just your own lives, not everyone else's.
Religious Protest from the Left
A Religious Protest Largely From the Left
Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority
By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; A08
When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.
That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?
Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.
It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.
Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees, he said. They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.
At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.
At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.
To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings good news to the poor.
Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.
To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not intellectually right.
The right tax policy, such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit, he said.
Dobson also has praised what he calls pro-family tax cuts. And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives know that the government is not really capable of love.
You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need, she said.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.
There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact, he said. But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility.
The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves, he said. We're talking here about massive welfare programs.
The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
We certainly wouldn't want a president whose religious
Or impact how they view society or race relations or even science. We surely would not want religious beliefs to impact political decisions on any level, including voters.
Religious people go to church
Religious people who go to work check their religion at the door. The constitution specifically instructs Congress to do the same. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means keep religion out of federal legislative codes. Implied therein is the concept that the nation is not theocratic in nature.
The original poster is well understood in the expressed wish that this not be forgotten and remain unchanged. It is difficult to understand what is meant by the statement that religion will be in the White House under any leadership. Clearly, religious people, some to a greater degree than others, will inhabit the White House and the chambers of Congress. However, religion is constitutionally prohibited from entering the body of our laws and does not provide a foundation for our governmental institutions. The constitution has given indivuals immunity from federally mandates on religion. Wise men of great vision, our forefathers.
BINGO... that's why the rabid Religious Right does
They're as bad as the fundamentalist Islamics...'It's OUR way, or the highway'!
Sheep.
Are you saying only religious people are pro life?
If so, you are wrong.
It's only a "political" issue to religious
Why else would any religious group want you to vote?
Silly girl!
Trying to figure this out. Religious dems....sm
give more than religious repubs, and nonreligious dems give less than nonreligious repubs. Do I have this right? It seems to me the religious dems give the most, yes?
Not trying to start a religious discussion here, but
being on its knees is exactly what this country needs.
Religious beliefs are not the issue here...
We were discussing the law...the phrase concerning Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually in the Declaration of Independence, and does not mention "citizens" at all. Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, I'm not aware of any nation in which murder or the taking of a human life is not outlawed.
As far as the ultimate decision resting with God, of course all decisions ultimately rest with God. But does that mean we should not govern ourselves or our behavior while we are here on this earth? Of course not. Laws protect the innocent - few are as innocent as an unborn child. It never ceases to amaze me that people can condone the killing of unborn babies, but are horrified if someone kills one that is 3 days old...or leaves one in a dumpster shortly after birth...or on the doorsteps of a church. I think it has been drilled into our heads for so long that this is a choice for women and our RIGHT that we actually never step back and think about the fact that we are talking about killing babies. If someone were to propose a law that men...simply because they were men...had the right to, oh, kill 3 year olds, people would laugh their heads off at the absurdity of it. Yet that is exactly what we are doing - giving women the right to kill their own children, simply because they are women and the child is in their body. Why not give the fathers the right to abort the child? After all, it is half theirs? Again, an absurd notion. But because we are women and the children grow in our bodies, we have the right to kill them? I'm sorry, I can never understand the justification for this. There are alternatives. There are choices. Choosing to kill the child should not be an option. In what other situation is it acceptable to kill another human being as a viable choice? I can think of only one - self-preservation. Self defense. So I supposed under the law, if the unborn child is killing you, you should probably be able to protect yourself. I would have to agree with that argument, but sadly, that is rarely the reason for an abortion.
Very true. More religious propaganda..sm
One nation indivisibile, no matter what your religion, with liberty and justice for all was the original intent to pledge that you love your country. No religious affiliation necessary. What ever happend to "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "As you do unto the least, so you do unto me", "Judge not lest you be judged", and there are many others. My God is a God of love and knows we are all fallible, but he does not judge us. He is there to love us and to try to guide us toward loving and helping our fellow humans, not hate and division and bigotry that people who have a lot to gain by influencing politics are fostering in the name of God/Jesus and religion. This is the reason that there need to be a separation of church and state in this country. Amost every war that has ever been fought has been fought in the name of God/religion. Do you think that it is God's intent that we should be at war in his name? Think about it.
Plays the religious card?
When it suits him? How about trying to set the record straight when others spew baloney about him? If you were running for office, you would do the same thing if people were saying incorrect things about you, what you believe in, have voted or not voted for, etc.
If he didn't people would then say, "See, he didn't dispute it, so it must be true." Either way, the bashers find reason to bash ... cause that's what they do.
If it were so free (of religious bulls#it), then
Right?
Religious Coalition for Choice
I received an email last night from the above organization, RCRC.org. It is an organization supported by many major religious supporting reproductive choice. A few of the member groups are:
Catholics for Choice
The American Baptist Church
Presbyterian Church USA
United Methodist Church
Episcopal Church
United Church of Christ
Union for Reformed Judiasm
any many, many more ...
I posted this on this board because the choice issue is a political issue, as well as a faith issue for so many people.
As a Jew, I find it interesting that so many Christian organizations support reproductive choice for women. I'm curious if anyone here belongs to any of these groups or knows anything about the organization. I am still reading up on it myself.
We religious wackos in America are
Christian persecution is all about with liberals and atheists in charge of our government. Your little name-calling is not a drop in the bucket. But we will be okay. It takes strength to have faith and believe in someone unseen and that is where our courage comes from.
Yes, this post has touched my heart deeply also. When I get to heaven and see her baby, I will explain why his mom made her decision (so she could sleep nights) and why they will never meet (because his mom refused to believe and stood up for her social issues and rights).
This may sound harsh, but it is just stating what I believe. Just as you have done. I have just as much right for my voice to be heard as the 2 of you.
Stimulus is 'anti-religious'
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”
In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”
The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”
“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”
“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”
In the e-mail, Huckabee concedes that there is little that conservatives can do in the near term, but advocated mobilization to defeat those “masquerading as ‘conservative Democrats.’”
“This is the opening round of the Democrats’ campaign for big government,” he wrote. “We cannot afford to sit round one out, because if we do, they will only become more emboldened and their grab for power more audacious and damaging to our country and our freedoms.”
If the religious freaks forced me to have it, -
I'd stomp on it the moment it popped out.
Religious freedom....not for long.
A bill regarding control of the Catholic Church has exploded as one of the hottest issues of the session at the state Capitol - prompting charges and countercharges about religious freedom.
Have you guys heard about this. This is just insanity.
The measure, which was raised as a committee bill by the Democratic co-chairs of the influential judiciary committee, would allow the finances of local parishes to be run by lay councils and would essentially remove power from Catholic pastors, who would serve in an advisory role. Opponents say the bill is clearly unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment regarding the right to freedom of religion.
Polygamy isn't just religious beliefs
There are others, such as "swingers" who engage in group sex. Who's not to say that they wouldn't start to fight for the right to marry, even if only for the massive tax break they would get?
Religious Fanatics are FAR more dangerous
You are absolutely right. You can tell that just by reading 99.9% of the posts on this board.
the conservative board is a liberal board now
you all aren't happy until you infect everyone out there with your hatred. It's not something I'd very proud of.
I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
At the risk of being called one of the religious fanatics....
and lumping everyone together in one pile is not fair may I say...you believe in choice. You are taking choice away from the child. If the child was able to speak I am relatively sure it would not choose to be exterminated like vermin. You want to give all the power to the woman over her body...perhaps she should take some responsibility for that body and not fall back on extermination as a method of birth control. If abortion was stopped for all but rape, incest, and endangering life of the mother hundreds of thousands of babies would be saved every year. What happened to responsibility? Why was that abandoned in the name of choice? If you can speak for the choice of the woman, why can't some of us speak for the right to life of the child? If she has it and drowns in 10 days later, she is tried for murder. What a difference 10 days makes, eh??
As far as jobs going overseas...when our government taxes businesses into oblivion (happens in every Dem admin) jobs go overseas. Because we have the next to highest business taxes in the entire world. That discourages businesses coming here also...and the jobs those businesses would create...as well as sending jobs from here offshore. Or they close completely, and jobs are lost. I have gone up steadily in earnings since the Clinton administration. I am doing much better now than I was then.
Socialism (redistribution of wealth) does not work either. It never has. Cuba, Venezuela...it never works. All that happens in socialism is eventually the middle class disappears, and all you have is the upper crust (govt and cronies) and the rest of the people. And in that case the money stays at the top...it never quite gets to the "people" where it was promised it would go. I imagine the Venezuelan people are still waiting for their oil checks since the government took it over. Socialism doesn't work. It is a myth to get people to give over the power to the power brokers...in our case, the DNC. Be careful what you ask for....
Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious
nm
yes, and insulting to religious people, housepainters
nm
No need to ridicule, as most religious groups make
NM
|
