You fell for all that religious dogma, didn't you?
Posted By: Baaaah. Baaaah. on 2009-06-02
In Reply to: Don't bother trying to yank our chain. - We're not falling for it.
X
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
Hmmmm, I didn't realize war veterans fell into
##
His mother didn't enroll him for religious reasons
She did what any good mother should do. She checked out the area to find the best possible education for her child. She sent him to a Catholic school for 2 years, too (yet I don't hear anyone arguing that he is Catholic). His mother, still acting like a good mother, regularly re-evaluated who offered the best education for her son. At that time, the public school in the city provided it, which in this case happened to be a Muslim school, which he attended for 2 years.
I will repeat what I mentioned in a previous posting...there are many people who send their children to schools that they do not have an affiliation with- there are many non-Catholics attending Catholic schools, non-Christians attending Christian academies, etc. Even in the public school system, there are a lot of people who do interdistrict transfers and drive 50 miles every day to give their children the benefit of an education that they feel would be better for them, even though there is a neighborhood school walking distance from home.
Mother O's decision to put her child in the best school available to them has nothing to do with embracing Islam. It's just her being a mom.
Sam's Marxist dogma.
Ever heard of the progressive tax system...the one the US has ALWAYS had? That would be the same (regressive) tax system that redistributes wealth from top to bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax
Check out the table here to see the history of progressive tax structure in the US and notice how much MORE of a percentage of tax the top income brackets have paid in the past as compared to what Obama is proposing. Pay special attention to the prevailing rates between 1932 and 1981.
The vast majority of US economists (81%) support this tax structure. Before income tax was enacted, Theodore Roosevelt (McCain's hero) strongly advocated for progressive tax. McCain has made no mention of repealing or changing its basic structure. Your Marxist arguments about Obama's tax proposals are embarrassingly ill-informed, especially in view of the fact that Obama simply wants to restore the top bracket tax rate that was in effect in 2000 when Bush assumed office (39.6%). That is hardly excessive, in view of US history which informs us that in the past, it has been as high as a whopping 94% and that same bracket rate ranged between 63% and 94% for 49 years (1932 to 1981) of the 95 years we have been paying income tax.
By your logic, we are already a socialist country, and we have had 7 socialist republican presidents. NOT.
The only dogma Obama is mired down in...
is Marxist redistribution of wealth, and he clings bitterly to that one like he says Pennsylvanians do to their guns and religion. That is the ONLY thing he has not wavered from, and THAT should tell you something. But you just want the ice cream.
Someone here fell off the deep end
But that's OK, the moderator knows individual people are making these posts. And one always has the option of emailing a poster privately and getting a response if they were truly concerned about someone's identity. I suppose its easier on the ego to think one person is making these observations, instead of realizing several people are agreeing, lending more validity to the point. I've had muliple posters disagree with me before, and never once jumped to the conclusion they were all the same person. It caused me instead to ponder perhaps I was in the wrong...but I guess we all handle these things diferently, huh?
I all but fell out of my chair!! ...maestro of
lies, deceit, chaos, and cowardice.
Tell that to those who were SO gleeful when markets fell
When the markets were falling, it was because of Obama. Now that they are rising, and rising consistently and significantly, it means nothing? Yeah right.
You people are grasping at straws because the man you love to hate is succeeding in spite of Republican poor sportsmanship and pouting.
I almost fell off my chair reading that blog. sm
That ad campaign took major cohones to pull off. I have to agree with almost every posting there. I did not vote for it, but then I did not vote for ANY bailout to ANYBODY. So Chrysler basically thumbed their noses at us and there is nothing we can do about it. This emoticon says it all. 
OMG, so boring, I fell asleep in the middle of it...nm
nm
If McCain were elected and fell dead, I would hate to see Palin try to run a country with her wild
antics.
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?
No, not a religious board.
I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin.
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?
Take this to the religious board
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.
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.
Silence. Did everyone go to the religious board?nm
x
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.
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.
|
