Reply With QuoteUh, you don't need a priest to get married. Ever hear of Justice of the Peace?
Any ordained minister can perform the marriage as well (doesn't mean he has to be affiliated with God)
The definition of a secular society to put it simply, A secular society is a society that runs on a non-religious basis. Australia is a secular society. America is a secular society. I find these statements to be blatantly false. Why?
While no 'laws' may have any religious influence (please correct me if im wrong, would love to hear what you think about that), theres countless traditions that are engrained into society that are religious of nature masked as holidays for anyone. Christmas for example. In one of the classrooms in the public school I work in, they play songs about jesus christ, of whom is portrayed as a real person when in fact he is a fictional character. Sorry if that pisses you off, but I have just as much reason to believe santa is real. Easter (obviously) the easter bunny is coming to give you chocolate. And jesus was reborn. If we are a secular society, should that make churches exempt from paying taxes on the income gained from donations? Even charities have to pay tax, why shouldn't churches? Might be trailing off there. Something that bothers me most about how 'secular' we're supposed to be, is marriage. Marriage is something that is lawfully recognized and can only be performed by a priest to that of whom has been baptized. That is the biggest mistake the government has made by allowing a religious ceremony become recognized as a legally binding contract in law and state.
Christians are losing their grasp on their traditions by having it become universally renowned as something its not, and non-religious people are basking in it without realizing that they're celebrating something that is traditionally religious in nature.
Furthermore, why is it christians christmas blurted out all over tv and in public. It seems that holiday is the most disgraced of all. There are so many other holidays, but why is christmas focused on in both here and america as something that its not.
A better world will result when we apply reason and rationality and recognise the importance of universal secular values of freedom, justice, honesty and compassion.
Whats honest about the portrayal of christmas? Perhaps its just a change for retailers to make big sales and therefor an important reason to masqurade an entire religious holiday as a non-religious event in which everyone participates no matter what culture. These are mainly just thoughts that were prompted to me today. I dont think we are a secular society. At least not for long.
Uh, you don't need a priest to get married. Ever hear of Justice of the Peace?
Any ordained minister can perform the marriage as well (doesn't mean he has to be affiliated with God)
They will grant you a civil union. They cannot bind you in marriage (holy matrimony). Its just noone wants to be "civil unioned" these days. Many homosexuals would prefer to be 'married'. Unfortunatly, its not as simple as all that. Only a priest can bind people in holy matrimony. My argument stands that if we are in fact a secular society (the seperation of church and state) then why is it that marriage is legally recognized?
Last edited by Rowan; 12-12-2011 at 04:10 PM.
*Sigh*
The state on paper is defined by it's laws, isn't it?The definition of a secular society to put it simply, A secular society is a society that runs on a non-religious basis. Australia is a secular society. America is a secular society. I find these statements to be blatantly false. Why?
I don't think they're masked per se. Everyone knows how Christmas originated and its meanings. Commercialism is what seems to be masking Christmas since the tradition of gift-giving began.While no 'laws' may have any religious influence (please correct me if im wrong, would love to hear what you think about that), theres countless traditions that are engrained into society that are religious of nature masked as holidays for anyone.
There's out-of-bible evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus. We know that Jesus was a significant individual from this evidence even in a non-religious sense since these records exist. This man was born a Jew in a small town in a far-flung country in the massive Roman Empire. Whilst record-keeping was OK at the time, the records from this time are mostly lost - which is to be expected after 2000 years. Despite this, authenticated and dated evidence of the existence of a man named Jesus exists and was preserved. There's even evidence from Greek scholars who attempted to disprove the miracles at the time by calling them things such as illusions, mentions in Jewish and Islamic texts and a whole bunch of other evidence which proves that the man existed. Scientists acknowledge his existence. Some people don't believe that he was the son of God which is of course a much more reasonable non-belief, but he was not a fictional character.Christmas for example. In one of the classrooms in the public school I work in, they play songs about jesus christ, of whom is portrayed as a real person when in fact he is a fictional character.
You do have if you're a crazy person. We know he's not real because there's evidence he was fabricated. Also he was based on a real person, and is not intended to be believed as a real person. In some places he is explained to children as a metaphor.Sorry if that pisses you off, but I have just as much reason to believe santa is real.
Easter eggs are another metaphor. They represent the bolder that was cast-aside from the tomb of Jesus upon his resurrection.Easter (obviously) the easter bunny is coming to give you chocolate. And jesus was reborn.
The Easter bunny on the other hand was created for the same reasons as Santa and the tooth fairy, for metaphorical child-explaining purposes.
I was under the impression that British and American charities don't pay taxes. That's why they want the 'charity' status.If we are a secular society, should that make churches exempt from paying taxes on the income gained from donations? Even charities have to pay tax, why shouldn't churches?
Justice of Peace. Registrars. Do these mean anything to you? In most countries religious ceremonies aren't legally recognised and must be officiated by these individuals. Even in England a government official must take care of the legal stuff.Might be trailing off there. Something that bothers me most about how 'secular' we're supposed to be, is marriage. Marriage is something that is lawfully recognized and can only be performed by a priest to that of whom has been baptized.
I can think of many bigger mistakes. Also religion and marriage predate government. The religious ceremony of marriage is not recognised in most countries without the signing of a legal marriage certificate. The ceremony doesn't count for anything in the eyes of the laws of many countries unless the certificate is signed in a legal manner.That is the biggest mistake the government has made by allowing a religious ceremony become recognized as a legally binding contract in law and state.
Could you possibly elaborate? Religion isn't a new thing by the way - major 'modern' religions date back thousands of years.Christians are losing their grasp on their traditions by having it become universally renowned as something its not, and non-religious people are basking in it without realizing that they're celebrating something that is traditionally religious in nature.
Commercialisation. This isn't done by churches, but by the retail industry. In fact, a lot of churches abhor this kind of thing. My local parish gives away stickers stating 'Keep Christ in Christmas', in order to make people remember what it's supposed to be about.Furthermore, why is it christians christmas blurted out all over tv and in public. It seems that holiday is the most disgraced of all. There are so many other holidays, but why is christmas focused on in both here and america as something that its not.
It's not Christians that have disgraced Christmas.
Soviet Russia and 'Communist' China not secular enough for you?A better world will result when we apply reason and rationality and recognise the importance of universal secular values of freedom, justice, honesty and compassion.
I'm not saying that morals don't exist without religion but they're a big factor. Ever heard of 'an eye for an eye?', that was the justice system before people realised through religion that that's a bit too mean.
Your definition of secularisation actually oppresses religious people y'know.
It is to non-Christians. It's a result of secularisation.Whats honest about the portrayal of christmas? Perhaps its just a change for retailers to make big sales and therefor an important reason to masqurade an entire religious holiday as a non-religious event in which everyone participates no matter what culture. These are mainly just thoughts that were prompted to me today. I dont think we are a secular society. At least not for long.
---
These people do grant marriage. As it stands there is no way for a heterosexual couple in the United Kingdom to be joined in a civil partnership. A legal partnership between a heterosexual couple is defined as a marriage everywhere in the world.They will grant you a civil union. They cannot bind you in marriage (holy matrimony). Its just noone wants to be "civil unioned" these days. Many homosexuals would prefer to be 'married'. Unfortunatly, its not as simple as all that. Only a priest can bind people in holy matrimony. My argument stands that if we are in fact a secular society (the seperation of church and state) then why is it that marriage is legally recognized?
I do think that marriage should be a religious-only thing though. With legal recognition - seeing as marriage certificates are signed. It would mean that in the eyes of the law the individuals are in a partnership and in the eyes of the church (and society in general) they are married.
---
It scares me that you might be that ignorant.
Last edited by Aerif; 12-12-2011 at 04:58 PM.
Banners and Stuff:
Last signature update: 02/08/2014
May I remind you that your beliefs are based upon countless religions that pre-date christianity/catholosism and those that pre-date have the exact same story as your jesus christ? yet you would put all your eggs in one basket and claim that your belief is the one true belief. To me, that is ignorance. Sections of my post could have been misinformed at worst.Originally Posted by Albha
by the way, there were tens of thousands of people named jesus back then. All of the stories about him were never witnissed by the people that wrote them, hence yet another reason not to believe them. You want to turn this into a religious debate, take a shot at my intelligence again and ill make sure you look stupid.
There is little evidence for any monotheistic religion before Judiasm. Christianity could be seen as a sequel to Judiasm.
Most modern religions recognise that there is the possibility that they are not the one true religion. Judiasm, Christianity and Islam all acknowledge that if one is correct then all believers of these faiths are in ways correct.
Also, putting eggs in a basket is a better way to keep them safe than leaving them out of a basket. Like atheists do. If I'm wrong, big whoop, I get treated the same way as any other wrong individual. If I'm right I spend the afterlife in paradise. Can people who don't believe in anything make that claim?
Nazareth wasn't exactly a massive place. There weren't thousands of 'Jesus of Nazareth's. We refer to him as Jesus nowadays because when I say 'Jesus' it's obvious who I'm talking about. They didn't just call him Jesus back then, or in the official records. That would be silly.by the way, there were tens of thousands of people named jesus back then. All of the stories about him were never witnissed by the people that wrote them, hence yet another reason not to believe them. You want to turn this into a religious debate, take a shot at my intelligence again and ill make sure you look stupid.
I'm not taking shots at your intelligence. I'm saying you're ignorant for not realising that registrars perform marriages for heterosexual couples. And for not realising that the commercialisation of Christmas isn't what Christians want. And for being mean about religion in general.
Banners and Stuff:
Last signature update: 02/08/2014
Sounds to me like you're appealing to pascals wager. The idea that its safer to believe than to not believe, especially on your death bed. If you're god was smart, people who believe in god for the sake of believing in him beacuse its safer, a smart god would see this as a false worship and condemn them for not truly believing in him. Also you only get one life, and you think its safer to live in in worship of a god that has no good reason to believe that exists, just to be safe when you're dead? I wont critisize you anymore. I just disagree thats how people should live their lives.
I never said christians were monopolizing christmas, I said the government were in order to boost consumerism. In actuality if you read it again, I was defending christmas origins leading back to christianity. If it were something like hanuka or whatever that wasnt publicly displayed like christmas all over tv etc, I wouldnt care. Its just another example of religion being intertwined with society in a way that it shouldnt have been. I think you agree with that.
Very few, actually, have similar stories as that of Jesus Christ, and even those weren't extremely widespread at the time.
Just like you believe that what you believe is the truth, and nothing that differs is?yet you would put all your eggs in one basket and claim that your belief is the one true belief.
If you were simply uninformed or misinformed, that would be ignorance. Look it up, that's actually what the word "ignorance" means. Sections of your post -- the majority of it, in fact -- reach far past ignorance into a state of being willfully misinformed. Not knowing and not being sure are entirely seperate from refusing to know.Sections of my post could have been misinformed at worst.
Yet, the Jesus who became Christ was still documented, through both Jewish and Roman records. If you knew anything about Jesus at all, you would know that the entire reason that Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem was that they needed to go back to the city of their birth to take part in a census conducted on orders from King Herod. Jewish records from what was then (and now) Israel acknowledge the existence of Jesus -- obviously, they did not believe that he was part of God, but they knew he existed. Even Islam acknowledges the existence of Jesus, though they believe that He is a prophet an not the Messiah. The Romans recorded His death, even though it was under Jewish law and not Roman law that He was executed.by the way, there were tens of thousands of people named jesus back then.
Well, except for Peter, James, John, Matthew, Thomas ... you know, the disciples, the guys that followed Jesus around and then wrote about him.All of the stories about him were never witnissed by the people that wrote them, hence yet another reason not to believe them.
It's pretty obvious that you want to turn this into a religious debate, since you've made nothing but false claims and insults towards Christianity and those who hold it as a belief. Besides, you've already made one person here look incredibly stupid, I don't think you're capable of doing the same thing for anybody else. (That's you, by the way -- you've made yourself look stupid. I just wanted to point that out again, in case you were wondering who it was.)You want to turn this into a religious debate, take a shot at my intelligence again and ill make sure you look stupid.
Albha prettymuch covered the rest of it (and granted, you didn't make yourself look stupid all on your own, Albha did help you quite a bit with that), so there's not much more yet. You just seem to be confused between a secular, non-religious society and the society you wish for, which would be anti-religious.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Except Rowan is not claiming it is a monotheistic god. I find the parellels between the supposed life of Jesus according to the gospels and the roman god Mithras(who was originally appropiated from the persians) to be a bit too similar to be a coincidence. QI - Christmas, Christianity and Mithras - YouTube. A good a link as any for explaining this.
In regards to the thread, from what I can observe a country is only as secular as its population, politicians, and corporations allow it to be. Ireland is a prime example of this. Go back 70 years and the country was under the omnipresent influence of the church, and it was a situation where the archbishop of dublin wielded more power than the taoiseach(prime minister). Come back to today and the country is more secular due to the populations disdain and disinterest of the church which is reflected in the policy of the government. We have had blasphemy laws introduced within the past few years(yeah, I dont get it either) by the previous administration to make it illegal to publicly criticize them but the population is passively affecting the secularism of the nation.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston S.Churchill
It does seem similar when phrased like that. But it was also constructed to be phrased like that. Mithras was born of a rock. It was a virginal birth only because as far as scientists know rocks don't participate in sexual intercourse.Except Rowan is not claiming it is a monotheistic god. I find the parellels between the supposed life of Jesus according to the gospels and the roman god Mithras(who was originally appropiated from the persians) to be a bit too similar to be a coincidence. QI - Christmas, Christianity and Mithras - YouTube. A good a link as any for explaining this.
There obviously is the possibility that a lot of Christianity was based on these type of stories. But from some quick research it seems that the majority of the practicion of the religion with Mithras at the centre occurred from 0-400AD (approx.). There's no way of knowing if there is any basis in the similarities.
I acknowledge that all elements of Christianity were probably not passed down directly from Jesus. However there is plenty of historical documentation that shows the Catholic and the Orthodox church being traced back to the foundation of Christianity, which begs the question as to how much was changed and adapted. It woul be fascinating stuff.
It has been said that every story ever made has been told before. You can't make something up that hasn't been made up before. Likewise you can't experience something that hasn't been written about before. Considering how many gods existed in polytheistic religions - and how many polytheistic religions there were, you'd expect there to be similarities.
People are always going on about how Christianity has been changed by man over time. But who's to say other religions weren't changed to be more similar to Christianity? We accept knowledge of ancient civilisations from small groups of people, these people are almost garunteed to have had some Christian influence in their lives - could this make them biased?
I just wanted to voice my opinion on religious similarity there. It was typed just as I sat at the keyboard and some of it may not make sense (it's 7am). The message should be obvious though.
Exactly. In a democracy if a population becomes less religious then obviously the members of the the democracy who are elected to power are going to be similarly less religious and the laws they make will reflect on this.In regards to the thread, from what I can observe a country is only as secular as its population, politicians, and corporations allow it to be. Ireland is a prime example of this. Go back 70 years and the country was under the omnipresent influence of the church, and it was a situation where the archbishop of dublin wielded more power than the taoiseach(prime minister). Come back to today and the country is more secular due to the populations disdain and disinterest of the church which is reflected in the policy of the government. We have had blasphemy laws introduced within the past few years(yeah, I dont get it either) by the previous administration to make it illegal to publicly criticize them but the population is passively affecting the secularism of the nation.
Secularisation is a direct result of the stunted growth of religion, political correctness and 'fashionable' atheism.
As far as blasphemy laws are concerned. They may have been introduced to prevent conflict. There are some extremists on Ireland who have taken action over less, most of this was of course in the north, but it could have been introduced for security purposes. I don't know though really. England and Wales had similar blasphemy laws that were called in only in cases where things were considered offensive to Christians and the Christian country as a whole.
But only one person was arguing that the commonly cited secular countries were not secular. And he's now banned. There's not much left to discuss on this topic unless someone else agrees with the line of questioning.
Last edited by Aerif; 12-13-2011 at 12:23 AM.
Banners and Stuff:
Last signature update: 02/08/2014
I disagree with this definition. Secularism is the separation of Church and State; those in spiritual authority should not hold secular authority, and vice versa. 'The Church' (this is a very Christian-centric way to phrase 'religions'; I could just have easily said 'imams' or something -- but I'll keep using this throughout) in a secular society does not have worldly authority. The Church does not have authority over those who do not wish to submit themselves to that authority.
Similarly, a secular state must not permit public officials to have authority over matters of the Church.
Simple analogy: the state cannot decide who is to be the Catholic Archbishop for a given country. The Archbishop has no authority over elected officials at any level.
Note that this does not mean that this cannot happen -- say if the elected official wants the Archbishop to tell them what to do (for instance, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand is a Catholic, so it is possible and indeed likely that he will act in ways that the Archbishop might approve of). Note also that this doesn't mean that the state cannot do anything that the Church also advocates -- that is, it is not that the state must do the diametric opposite of what the Church would do if it had the authority; just that the Church must not have authority in public decision-making, and vice-versa.
In principle, they are patently true. Religious institutions do not have official authority in either of these states. Contrast this with Iran (and many other Arab states (I don't say 'Muslim' because that's silly: Indonesia, the state with the most Muslims in the world, is also one of, if not the most secular country in the world)), where the Ayatollah is both a religious and a public authority (and thus laws are passed, or indeed exist as part of a constitution, regarding the religion of citizens) -- the exact opposite of secularism. Julia Gillard and Barrack Obama are not Church authorities; indeed, the former is an atheist.Australia is a secular society. America is a secular society. I find these statements to be blatantly false. Why?
If you're trying to say that secularism does not operate in practice, then you may have a point, but only if you mean that in the sense that individuals' religious beliefs have forebearance over their public authority. That is not an issue of secularism, however, as secularism concerns religious institutions and their role; not the religion of individuals.
So your point is about the use of Christian holidays as secular holidays? That is not a violation of secularism per se, although I'd argue what is of more relevance here is the Christian heritage of (for example) Australia. You cannot deny that the vast majority of the European settlers of Australia were Christians. I'd wager it's few (two at most) generations in your family since it was almost completely comprised of Christians (it's an assumption, of course, but my own family Bible testifies for it (my dad's side being Scottish Presbyterians; my mum's Irish Catholics). At a time when our nations were distinctly non-secular (again not so long ago), these holidays embodied the spirituality of those in power (i.e. Christians were in power), and they decided that Easter and Christmas should be about the celebration of their faith, and were extraordinary occasions in any given year -- justifing a state-mandated holiday. These persist today.While no 'laws' may have any religious influence (please correct me if im wrong, would love to hear what you think about that), theres countless traditions that are engrained into society that are religious of nature masked as holidays for anyone. Christmas for example.
And so what? We need holidays. Would you rather we just pick, idk, the 7th of August as the 'secular' holiday season (celebrate Alpha's birthday errbody)? Who cares what day it is? If it has spiritual significance to you, then cool! I'll be going (as I do most years) to midnight Mass, because that's the important aspect of Christmas to me. If that doesn't float your boat, enjoy your time off work!
Holidays like this only work if EVERYONE is off work at the same time. This crucial pattern is already established in Christmas and the new year. What's wrong with that?
I striked the bits that were irrelephant.In one of the classrooms in the public school I work in, they play songs about jesus christ,of whom is portrayed as a real person when in fact he is a fictional character. Sorry if that pisses you off, but I have just as much reason to believe santa is real. Easter (obviously) the easter bunny is coming to give you chocolate. And jesus was reborn.
So the relevant part first: That is wrong. State schools are state schools, and have absolutely no place giving religious instruction. I will add, however, that I think it is worthwhile having children/teenagers learn about the different religions that people do practice -- how else will they understand these people when we leave them completely uninformed? Any and all education of this type should be strictly voluntary and subject to parental permission, however. It is not the state's role to determine the appropriate religion of anyone. State schools, therefore, shouldn't offer religious instruction (distinct from religious education). I will add that this includes the idea that a state school must not tell children that God/s do not exist -- its role in a secular society is completely neutral.
The irrelevant part: Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. If he wasn't, exactly how do you explain the existence of the Christian faith? Did it just appear out of nowhere? I didn't realise a non-existent person could start a religious movement. Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus, Zoroaster, King David -- all real people, whose influence on history and the lives of countless individual lives is still felt today for better or worse. Pray tell, how they accomplished this without existing? Also, are you familiar with the epistles of Pliny the Younger? I'd recommend checking out the Wikipedia entry before commenting on this issue again.
I'm not sure about Australia, but I thought that the whole point (OK, a major part) of being a charity is that they are tax-exempt? The real issue is whether Churches qualify as charities; but given there are actually a large number of charities motivated by religion, should we revoke their tax exempt status too? It's a grey area, but not a major violation of secularism.If we are a secular society, should that make churches exempt from paying taxes on the income gained from donations? Even charities have to pay tax, why shouldn't churches?
The state can marry people. That is actually non-secular though, so you have something here. In my perfect secular world, only churches would be able to marry, but marriage would hold no legal status. Only the state could bind people together in a legal sense. I think we've had this discussion elsewhere. But yes, this is a good example of a situation that contravenes secularism. However, excluding homosexual and polygamous relationships, unions as defined by the Church and by the state do not differ; thus in practice, even if we adopted my ideal scenario, little would change. It is non-secular, but also non-significant. I wouldn't get too worked up by it.Something that bothers me most about how 'secular' we're supposed to be, is marriage. Marriage is something that is lawfully recognized and can only be performed by a priest to that of whom has been baptized. That is the biggest mistake the government has made by allowing a religious ceremony become recognized as a legally binding contract in law and state.
People can celebrate the holiday that coincides with Christmas in any way they want. That is secular.Christians are losing their grasp on their traditions by having it become universally renowned as something its not, and non-religious people are basking in it without realizing that they're celebrating something that is traditionally religious in nature.
I don't even know what you're saying at this point.Furthermore, why is it christians christmas blurted out all over tv and in public. It seems that holiday is the most disgraced of all. There are so many other holidays, but why is christmas focused on in both here and america as something that its not.
I don't appreciate the sense in which you use 'reason' and rationality' here, as though anyone with faith is irrational and stupid. They're not; it's a personal choice, and one which you should fundamentally uphold and support if you are indeed secular. What you seem to be advocating (at least as a sub-text) is the suppression of any and all references to religion. That's not so much secular as it is anti-religious -- radical secularism perhaps.A better world will result when we apply reason and rationality and recognise the importance of universal secular values of freedom, justice, honesty and compassion.
EDIT: I'll also add to the off-topic-discussion-becoming-major-part-of-this-discussion. Christianity is undeniably similar to pre-existing 'pagan' (indigenous is a more correct term) religions. There's a reason for that. If you were a newly-Christian Roman official, trying to convert people to the state religion (oh look, non-secularism), are you going to make them completely drop their seasonal, generationally-ingrained and habitual traditions? Or are you going to adapt the practice of Christianity to suit them? The latter is far easier. Thus, Christ's 'rebirth' is in (the northern hemisphere's) spring, and we see Easter bunnies and eggs (Both pagan symbols of fertility (new life... rebirth... resurrection), and Christmas during (NH's) winter, where Jesus represents the birth of a new year in the darkest time of the year (literally). You could criticise the adaptation of both tradition and of *** along these grounds -- but they make sense in the early history of the church and are not suspicious links to be used as evidence for the assertion that Christianity is a fiction.
***Forogt the word I'm looking for. Religious form? Dogma? Scripture?
Last edited by Alpha; 12-13-2011 at 02:37 AM.
I think what he is saying is that even with the common notion that various societies are secular in nature, how things play out in the normal day-to-day don't reflect that label at all. That is, while government may or may not keep its distance from the church, our mindsets and culture are deeply rooted in religious traditions. Given the respective histories of our various locales this is no surprise, but that's not the point. The issue is how we're somehow able label this or that society as secular in spite of this.
Which I agree with to a certain extent... though I wouldn't say "we" are all that religious either. As with most things, the situation takes on a form that blurs and oscillates between two extremes. It's interesting to think about just where our respective societies really are in relation to this, though.
I know quite a few fundamentalist Christians. In contrast to what Rowan is saying, many of them believe that we're falling farther and farther away from God as a society (and, of course, government has too). Going off what they are both saying alone, it's funny to think that two perceived opposites are both losing ground at the same time.
They celebrate Christmas in japan. It's just a couple's holiday like Valentine's Day, but they celebrate it nonetheless. I doubt many of them even really know where the holiday really came from. Hell, they essentially have Valentine's Day twice a year.
They also have their traditional holidays/festivals where they visit temples/shrines and pray to Gods for various reasons, or where they welcome and send off spirits of the deceased. Yet the majority will say they don't believe in a God/spirits/etc. You could call it being "spiritual," or just accepting old traditions without actually examining them... Whatever. To me it's a little hard to define what it is exactly. Regardless, I think a good portion of the world is going through something similar, if not almost exactly the same. That is, we're not a "secular society", but we're not "religious" either.
Are we talking about a secular society where the church is separate from the state or are we talking about a society that has no influence from religion? From Rowan’s posts, I think he is talking about the latter, where not only is the church not involved in affairs of the state, but neither the church nor any religion has influence on the laws of the country.
I have to say that I do wish America was more secular. This is not a result of any negative feelings that I have towards religion. Rather, the way that politics and religion is mixed in America leads to some interesting results that I don’t feel accurate reflect any religion, and that are damaging to the country.
Evangelical voters are such a large voting bloc that their vote, or lack of it, often times determines elections. Get them riled up and they will vote Bush into office. But don’t inspire them and they will stay home election night while Obama gets elected.
And there is nothing wrong with this at a glance. They are a large minority and should have their voice heard. But the problem is that because they are inseparable from the Republican party for arbitrary reasons, this has lead to Evangelicals directly or indirectly supporting some policies that don’t have anything to do with Christianity, and maybe even some that are against Christian principles. The most modern example is global warming. There is a disproportional amount of Evangelicals who do not believe in global warming. Maybe it is because they think only God can end the world. Or, more likely, they would rather support a lie than have a Democrat elected.
Global warming is just one example. About a decade or two ago the big issue was the death penalty, which many Christians ended up awkwardly supporting.
My point is this: I have no problem with religious people having an influence on government, but they must be their own party. When you get them attached to one party you end up with millions of Americans supporting things that they wouldn’t normally support, like giant tax cuts for the wealthy, lax pollution standards, draconian punishments, and other similar things that are not exactly Christian principles.
That would be an ideal society for me. But if we were to talk about a true secular society that Rowan would want, I think the only way to do that is to convince people that morality does not come from religion
Im going to say the extreme opposite and say that all people have an innate morality and the source of it is evolution, not God.
First, I will explain why religion cannot possibly be the source of morality. In virtually every society it is not acceptable to kill your parents just so you can take their belongings. But there are countless different religions, many do not even have a central god. Some believe in witches, some believe in ancestors, and so on. My point is that we have this universal code of morality where it is not acceptable to kill your parents for their stuff, yet there is no universal religion. In fact, some small societies may not have any religion at all. So how is it possible religion could be the source of people knowing that it’s wrong to kill for material gain? And of course killing your parents is only one example. There are other universal …um….codes of ethics that everyone follows.
I would like to propose that it’s likely morality came from evolution. Many species hunt in groups. Lets say you have a group of five wolves who hunt together. And it’s necessary to have 5 wolves to capture large game. And now lets say one wolf, all by himself, finds a dead animal. He can either share it with the others, or keep it for himself. If he keeps it for himself, it would be like an act of deception. Hes hiding it from his fellow hunters. He would get a big meal, but in the end it may hurt him. If theres a shortage of food, and he keeps it for himself, he will be fine, but other wolves may suffer, maybe even die. And then what? The group of 5 wolves comes down to a group of 4 or 3 wolves and now they have a harder time hunting large animals because hunting large animals is harder with fewer wolves. His selfish act gave him temporary satisfaction but hurt him (not to mention the other wolves) in the long run.
So evolution would favor sharing, instead of selfish hoarding, in this situation. That is morality. The example of a wolf stealing is not much different from stealing from a supermarket. This may not be obvious at first. But a supermarket is just a convenient place for selling goods produced elsewhere. Its not feasible for everyone to grow their own food, so instead we live in a society where everyone works as a group. And everyone must take part or else the system does not work. If 10% of people, or even 5%, or 1% decided they would steal from the supermarket instead of paying the whole system falls apart, and that is bad for everyone, just like the wolf hiding the extra food. What is so ingenious about evolution is this is just how it has to be. There is no God or religion required. Working as a group is much more beneficial to survival for everyone, and the only way it can work is if there is morality.
Of course religion can shape morality. Such as convincing people gay marriage is immoral. But I would not say that religion is the source of innate morality.
Just something for you guys to think about
I don't think giving 'Evangelicals' their own party would make America anymore secular. If you did that wouldn't you have to appeal to every other religion and give them their own party to? From what I got from your post though you aren't really looking for a secular society anyway right? You just want people to vote unbiasedly.
I don't know if I'm just stupid but I fail to see how your example proposes that over the process of time animals developed a sense of morals. Bekoff wrote a book (kinda interesting one at that) explaining how animals have hard wired into them some sense of morality (each species is different, not the same as right and wrong) to govern socially in their respective species (like your wolves Shine) but it is just as easy to say that God hard wired it into them because he loved his creation and wanted it to work orderly than it is to say that it appeals to survival of the fittest. There isn't enough evidence to support the claim that your wolves or any species developed a sense of morality over time than there is to say that they had that sense of it off the get go.
I think that is why Albha said that religion is a big factor with morality as it serves as a standard or guide for mankind to judge themselves instead of leaving it up to the individual and their own judgement of morality (which in most cases is self serving). At least that is what I think he was saying, maybe not though. Althought I think this is straying off topic a bit...
....To get back on topic, I wouldn't classify Canada or America (at least really am not informed enough about other countries to give input on them) as secular societies. If anything they are post-Christian ones leaning towards Post-Modern. Instead of outing religion the idea is to bring it all together under 'tolerance'. This is so relative truth can govern specific instances. I don't think I'm political enough to understand the impact that relative truth would have on societies and law governing but I suspect it would be a big change from what it is now right?
EBG
Well, the idea is that it is undoubtedly more beneficial for organisms to cooperate together, so if there was ever any genes that led to cooperation they would be favored by evolution. It doesn’t have to come about all at once (in fact, it certainly did not). It could have started with some organisms having a tendency to share, and in certain circumstances (like period of low food) organisms who shared together would survive, and all the other organism with no sharing (and no morality) would die and only the sharer genes would be passed on. It is just like any other trait.
What do you think about the fact that, as you say, each animal has their own morality? Evolution’s answer is that they have what is best for their survival. But why would God decide to change morality on a case by case basis. And is it just a giant coincidence that evolutionarily related species have similar forms of morality (ie, bonobos are highly cooperative)?
Now, one thing that I don’t want to do is get into the “you cant prove god does/doesn’t exist” or "god is/isnt responsible" debate because its tired and we will never get anywhere. I just wanted to show that there is no reason to believe basic morals wouldn’t be passed on or favored through evolution.
I just think that in our current system the religious voters are concerned about issues that hardly have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus. And I think a large part of that is because they are linked to a pre-existing parties. Shouldnt the "religious right" fight for things like universal healthcare, protection for the homeless, help for the poor, etc? In America the religious voters, if anything, support the opposite. doesnt make any sense.I don't think giving 'Evangelicals' their own party would make America anymore secular. If you did that wouldn't you have to appeal to every other religion and give them their own party to? From what I got from your post though you aren't really looking for a secular society anyway right? You just want people to vote unbiasedly.
Absolutely not, it would be up an individual religious group to form their own party. They know they would not succeed in taking the votes however, so they don't even try...they know it's a battle they could not win. I also don't think anyone here is honestly suggesting religious groups should come together when voting, merely pointing out the flaws with doing so.
It most definitely is not easier, as you first must create the notion of a deity which is a hugely difficult task to do. You're adding an entire creating force independent of the species in question, that is no small task.but it is just as easy to say that God hard wired it into them because he loved his creation and wanted it to work orderly than it is to say that it appeals to survival of the fittest.
Actually, there is. The more complex a species becomes, the more complex its social structures also become. Highly evolved mammals have much more developed social skills than insects. One group acts solely on instinct, the other is capable of complex emotion and acting on those emotions. Is it likely that your creator pick and chose what species were deserving of morality, or is it more likely that the more developed species evolved a form of morality?There isn't enough evidence to support the claim that your wolves or any species developed a sense of morality over time than there is to say that they had that sense of it off the get go.
That really isn't morality then, that is a form of law without punishment is it not?I think that is why Albha said that religion is a big factor with morality as it serves as a standard or guide for mankind to judge themselves instead of leaving it up to the individual and their own judgement of morality (which in most cases is self serving).
It's nearly impossible to completely seperate a country from any and all religious influence. While there are no American laws based on Christianity, many have been inspired by the Bible. What Rowan wanted was a country and society completely free from not just religious influence, but religion itself -- where he wouldn't have to deal with the huge inconvenience of seeing a religious symbol, or suffer the torment of hearing somebody discuss their religious beliefs.
So how would that be different from any other sect? Sure, evangelicals help influence elections -- just like the so-called "Christian Left", or the black vote, hispanic vote, elderly vote, etc. Obama won with the help of many different pieces of the American voting pie, just as Bush had done.Evangelical voters are such a large voting bloc that their vote, or lack of it, often times determines elections. Get them riled up and they will vote Bush into office. But don’t inspire them and they will stay home election night while Obama gets elected.
Or maybe it's the fact that "global climate change" has for decades been used to attack capitalism. Climate change isn't really up for debate -- as our climate has been changing constantly since the creation of Earth -- it's the idea that the changing climates we're going through are the fault of human interaction with the environment.But the problem is that because they are inseparable from the Republican party for arbitrary reasons, this has lead to Evangelicals directly or indirectly supporting some policies that don’t have anything to do with Christianity, and maybe even some that are against Christian principles. The most modern example is global warming. There is a disproportional amount of Evangelicals who do not believe in global warming. Maybe it is because they think only God can end the world. Or, more likely, they would rather support a lie than have a Democrat elected.
Either way, I'm not quite sure how the refusal to use the "cause" of climate change to attack capitalism is anti-Christian, as you imply. Or how you can consider reasons for Christians to support the Republican party "arbitrary", when the conservatism has proven itself over liberalism in nearly every instance to be more focused on individual responsibility and the sanctity of innocent life.
The issue with the death penalty wasn't so much that "somebody deserves to die", but that our prison system is such a joke that capital punishment was the only way to cut down recidivism.Global warming is just one example. About a decade or two ago the big issue was the death penalty, which many Christians ended up awkwardly supporting.
First: Religious people in America don't all belong to the same party. There are plenty of people who claim plenty of religions that have vastly differing views. Second: "Tax cuts for the wealthy" should be "letting those who make money keep some of it", since the wealthy are still taxed disproportionately more than anybody else. Third: "Lax pollution standards" should be "rules that aren't entirely based on attacking capitalism and killing jobs". Fourth: "Draconian punishments", I'm not even sure where the hell you're trying to go with this. If you're referring to capital punishment, I've already addressed it, and I'm not sure what else could be considered "draconian", though thank you for using another liberal buzz-word.My point is this: I have no problem with religious people having an influence on government, but they must be their own party. When you get them attached to one party you end up with millions of Americans supporting things that they wouldn’t normally support, like giant tax cuts for the wealthy, lax pollution standards, draconian punishments, and other similar things that are not exactly Christian principles.
And finally: Who are you to say what is and what isn't a "Christian principle"?
And you'd be wrong. Morals and ethics are two different things.That would be an ideal society for me. But if we were to talk about a true secular society that Rowan would want, I think the only way to do that is to convince people that morality does not come from religion.
Your whole "everything evolved to be moral" argument is not only baseless, it's completely irrelevant, so I'll just ignore that. Especially the entire "survival of the most sharing" idea.
And you are the one to tell Christians whether they do or do not follow the teachings of Jesus?
No, because those issues would not be found in the teachings of Jesus. And before you start whining about how Jesus taught us to help the poor and homeless, I'll explain ... well, really, the only thing I need to say is "charity". There are hundreds of thousands of charitable organizations in the United States, and Americans are some of the most giving people in the world. (If you do a little research, you'll also find that conservatives give much more time and money to charity than do liberals, Republicans more than Democrats, etc.) The problem comes in with a federal government forcing "charity". And, of course, the fact that programs designed to help the poor have been expanded so greatly that they are almost encouraging poverty.Shouldnt the "religious right" fight for things like universal healthcare, protection for the homeless, help for the poor, etc?
And universal healthcare? Well, let's see -- the two countries with healthcare systems closest to the one Obama suggested, and the type that liberals have been fighting for for years, are abysmally horrible. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians come to the United States every year because there are American states with more necessary equipment and specialists than Canada has in the entire country. And there have been stories of people in England pulling their own teeth out with a pair of pliers because they had already had to wait more than two years just to get a cavity filled. Now, this isn't the place to debate whether or not certain types of socialized medicine are beneficial (as if there is any debate at all), but one cannot claim "if you don't support this, you must not be Christian" when the issue would be going against the teachings of Christ.
Besides ... are you complaining that Christians don't vote the way that you think they should vote according to your manipulations of the teachings of Jesus, or are you complaining that Christians use their religion to influence their politics? Or is it just that they don't vote the way you want them to, so they're wrong either way?
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
To repeat what I said earlier, there is a disproportionate amount of evangelicals who do not believe in global warming. There must be a reason for this. And its not because evangelicals are capitalists, because capitalism has nothing to do with Christianity.
Well, Im not going to turn this into a red vs blue debate because I cant stand either party. But I think by "individual responsibility" and "sanctity of innocent life" the only thing you could possibly be talking about is abortion. One point, Sasquatch.Or how you can consider reasons for Christians to support the Republican party "arbitrary", when the conservatism has proven itself over liberalism in nearly every instance to be more focused on individual responsibility and the sanctity of innocent life.
But what about other issues?
Theres a woman somewhere in America who just found out she has breast cancer and she is going to have her health insurance rescinded tomorrow so an insurance company can save money. What party attempted to expand health insurance? Even if you dont agree with Obamacare (Im guessing you dont), which party has consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly? I guess once you're born your life isnt so "sanctified" anymore.
Which party has drastically reduced pollution standards, which disproportionately leads to pollution of poor neighborhoods?
Under which administration where safety requirements for oil drilling greatly reduced, endangering lives and resulting in the death of 11 BP workers (Hint: BP racked up over 700 violations during the Bush years. ) Again, who was not protecting the sanctity of life?
Which party has continually cut funding for financial aid (in other words, which party is making it more difficult for "individually responsible" people to go to college and actually become taxpayers instead of just collecting a welfare check?)
Under which administration have two wars been fought with no clear goals or endgame or plan to get out, resulting in the death of literally countless innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan (since the DoD has said theres probably only 200 Al Qaeda members in Aghanistan, Im guessing most of the 100,000 + killed were not Al Qaeda and not a threat to American security)
Five points, Shine Dalgarno. And I only touched on the Bush years. I could go on and on.........
Again, im not turning this into a red vs blue flame war. I will just say this. You are kidding yourself if you believe any party is looking after your interest.
First: Religious people in America don't all belong to the same party. There are plenty of people who claim plenty of religions that have vastly differing views. Second: "Tax cuts for the wealthy" should be "letting those who make money keep some of it", since the wealthy are still taxed disproportionately more than anybody else. Third: "Lax pollution standards" should be "rules that aren't entirely based on attacking capitalism and killing jobs". Fourth: "Draconian punishments", I'm not even sure where the hell you're trying to go with this. If you're referring to capital punishment, I've already addressed it, and I'm not sure what else could be considered "draconian", though thank you for using another liberal buzz-word.
You are in denial if you believe that the vast majority of the wealthy (ie millionaires) "worked hard" to get their money, or that they "deserve" it because they provide some social benefit to America, like some wise men who just keep the gears of society moving. You are in denial if you believe that pollution standards kill jobs, or that everyone is out to destory Christianity, or when you cut some rich person's taxes, that they expand the economy, instead of just putting it all in derivatives (ie bets).
Just like how someone is crazy who thinks that guns lead to increased crime, or that religion causes people to do violent things....im sure theres a few other kooky liberal ideas but these two come to mind the most.
Pretending evolution doesnt exist doesnt make it go awayAnd you'd be wrong. Morals and ethics are two different things.
Your whole "everything evolved to be moral" argument is not only baseless, it's completely irrelevant, so I'll just ignore that. Especially the entire "survival of the most sharing" idea.
So what you should do is create programs that encourage independence, like financial aid for schooling tied to continued academic performance, especially in the sciences. And give financial aid based on per credit hour for required courses, not just capping aid per year, so students get out faster. Or maybe giving the severely disabled insurance even after they go to work.No, because those issues would not be found in the teachings of Jesus. And before you start whining about how Jesus taught us to help the poor and homeless, I'll explain ... well, really, the only thing I need to say is "charity". There are hundreds of thousands of charitable organizations in the United States, and Americans are some of the most giving people in the world. (If you do a little research, you'll also find that conservatives give much more time and money to charity than do liberals, Republicans more than Democrats, etc.) The problem comes in with a federal government forcing "charity". And, of course, the fact that programs designed to help the poor have been expanded so greatly that they are almost encouraging poverty.
Evangelicals dont support those type of programs either. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Youve been tricked into believe that people are poor because they want to be poor. The truth is, someone made up an excuse to be greedy and you believe it.
Obamacare is almost entirely private insurance, with a mandate. So its actually nothing like Canada or Great Britain. The system its most like is Switzerland, which, by the way, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.And universal healthcare? Well, let's see -- the two countries with healthcare systems closest to the one Obama suggested, and the type that liberals have been fighting for for years, are abysmally horrible. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians come to the United States every year because there are American states with more necessary equipment and specialists than Canada has in the entire country. And there have been stories of people in England pulling their own teeth out with a pair of pliers because they had already had to wait more than two years just to get a cavity filled. Now, this isn't the place to debate whether or not certain types of socialized medicine are beneficial (as if there is any debate at all), but one cannot claim "if you don't support this, you must not be Christian" when the issue would be going against the teachings of Christ.
I agree with everything Shine is arguing about the Christian Right. I think it's absurd that Christians vote Republican.
Actually, I think it's absurd that a religious group can be so readily identified with one particular party. The Republicans are (largely) pro-life. But they also have so many policies that don't seem like they would meet 'WWJD'.
But that is my own opinion, and I have no right to determine how 'wrong' someone else's perspective is. Ultimately, Sasquatch is right to say that people will vote as individuals (and thus as blocs), and parties compete to gain these blocs. That's democracy and I'm glad it exists.
But arguing about this happening in a debate about secularism is irrelevant. If I vote for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, as I have in the last two Parliamentary elections, I make that decision on a number of things that comprise my identity. If one of them is my religion, then that is fine. That is still secular. If your definition of secularism is that people must deny a fundamental aspect of their identity when forming political opinions, you are suppressing religion, which is a different kettle of fish from separating it from the State.
Last edited by Alpha; 12-21-2011 at 01:26 AM.
Yes, absolutely!
I actually think even as individuals, we shouldnt automatically get behind one party, unless you agree 100% with the party all the time. But how often does that happen, really?
I brought this up because this is how religion influences society, and it is what bothers people about religion. People practicing their religion in their home, or even evangelism, doesnt affect me, or anyone. But when millions start to vote the same way, this begins to affect everyone. And, you know, I dont at all have an problem with how an individual, or a group, votes. If a bunch of Americans dont like something its their right to try and change it. But it begins to bother me when it doesnt seem genuine and/or consistent. If Jesus went around talking about how big business was the backbone of society or how wealth should be the standard by which we measure success, I would totally support evangelicals voting Republican. But he doesnt.
To be fair, most of the time I vote I feel like Im choosing between "awful" and "even worse". And I think religious groups feel the same way sometimes.
... who don't believe in man-made global warming. I'm not correcting you because I'm sure that's what you're trying to say, I'm correcting you because you're wrong.
Because the idea of man-made global climate change is nothing but another way to attack capitalism, and yes, the ideas of individual responsibility, non-forced charity, supporting yourself without demanding support from others, etc. do coincide quite nicely with Christianity.There must be a reason for this. And its not because evangelicals are capitalists, because capitalism has nothing to do with Christianity.
Abortion would also fall into those categories, but that's not all. I say individual responsibility, and the only thing you can think of is abortion? Really?But I think by "individual responsibility" and "sanctity of innocent life" the only thing you could possibly be talking about is abortion.
You mean all the other things I said that you didn't address at all? If you really want to "score" this argument with "points", you might want to get your scoring system down.One point, Sasquatch.
But what about other issues?
If that is true, and there's no more to the story (like if she knew of a preexisting condition and falsified an application), then it would be illegal, and the insurance will not only be made to fulfill their contractual obligation and provide her with health insurance, but also legally punished and forced to pay fines, either to the government through a criminal trial or to the woman through a civil trial. But I'd like to see a credible cite for that.Theres a woman somewhere in America who just found out she has breast cancer and she is going to have her health insurance rescinded tomorrow so an insurance company can save money.
First: "Health insurance" and "healthcare" are not synonymous, they are two entirely different things. But to answer your questions, neither party has attempted to expand legal health insurance -- one specific party has attempted to force an unConstitutional health insurance plan on the populace, forcing taxpayers to fund the bill for health insurance for those who have chosen to not pay for it themselves, then making them go through hoops for other people to decide whether certain medical procedures or treatment methods were "worth it". And neither party has "consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly". Unless you're talking about making health insurance more expensive by refusing to address tort and continually allowing false malpractice cases to cost doctors and hospitals money -- but I don't think you'd care to hear which party supports the "right" to sue anybody, for any amount of money, for any reason.What party attempted to expand health insurance? Even if you dont agree with Obamacare (Im guessing you dont), which party has consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly? I guess once you're born your life isnt so "sanctified" anymore.
Your question should be, "which party has attempted to block or slow extreme pollution standards, which cost American jobs?" American companies already have to jump through hoops and go to extremes to obey current pollution standards, which costs them productivity and money that could (and otherwise would) be used to expand their company.Which party has drastically reduced pollution standards, which disproportionately leads to pollution of poor neighborhoods?
Are you referring to the Cllinton administration, which initially blocked American companies from drilling in the area of the Gulf oil spill, which led to BP (which had lower safety standards than American companies) taking it? Oh, of course not, you've got another case of BDS. Please, explain how an American politician indirectly killed people that he had absolutely, positively no control over.Under which administration where safety requirements for oil drilling greatly reduced, endangering lives and resulting in the death of 11 BP workers (Hint: BP racked up over 700 violations during the Bush years.)
Hahahahahahahahahahahah, wow. You think "individual responsibility" is demanding money for the government to better onesself? You obviously have no concept of "responsibility" ... or "individual", apparently.Which party has continually cut funding for financial aid (in other words, which party is making it more difficult for "individually responsible" people to go to college and actually become taxpayers instead of just collecting a welfare check?)
So let me help you: "Which party has continually pushed for indivuals to be responsible for themselves and work to put themselves through college, instead of letting them demand taxpayer money that will not be repaid, just so they can get a mediocre education in a field with no demand?" And then, possibly: "Which (opposing) party has continually pushed for money to be taken out of the hands of those who have earned it, to be redistributed to those who wish for further education but weren't good enough to get a scholarship and aren't responsible enough to work their way through college, like millions upon millions of other people have without demanding federal funds?"
Again. "Under which administration have two conflicts been started that have liberated fifty million people from Islamic extremism that included, among other things, public rapings, female genital mutilation, torture, and rampant poverty." And you really need to stop making your ignorance so obvious -- 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Next you'll say that the Taliban isn't our enemy. In every conflict, there will be collateral damage -- but to say that there have been 100,000 innocent deaths is a blatant lie. Remember, this isn't a conventional conflict with two uniformed enemies, this isn't one country against another, this is the strongest military force in the world against a group of people with no qualms hiding among innocent civilians, people that force villages to protect them or their name, people that threaten innocents with slaughter if they refuse to help them. And claiming that those that aren't specifically Al Qaeda are not our enemies is, at best, foolishly naive.Under which administration have two wars been fought with no clear goals or endgame or plan to get out, resulting in the death of literally countless innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan (since the DoD has said theres probably only 200 Al Qaeda members in Aghanistan, Im guessing most of the 100,000 + killed were not Al Qaeda and not a threat to American security)
This isn't the place, but if you would really like to compete, check the "create thread" button. I'll teach you how to keep score.Five points, Shine Dalgarno. And I only touched on the Bush years. I could go on and on.........
No, you're not, despite your efforts.Again, im not turning this into a red vs blue flame war.
Who said I believe that any party has my best interest in mind? I acknowledge that they don't -- but I do. Which is why I support the candidate (not the party, but the candidate) whose policies most closely resemble mine.I will just say this. You are kidding yourself if you believe any party is looking after your interest.
Then how did they get it? Are you one of the many who refute the fact that only 1.5% of people with over a million dollars actually inherited it? What, did every rich person steal their money?You are in denial if you believe that the vast majority of the wealthy (ie millionaires) "worked hard" to get their money, or that they "deserve" it because they provide some social benefit to America, like some wise men who just keep the gears of society moving.
Sure -- they didn't earn it, let's take it from them! Then nobody will ever work to be financially successful, because they will never be rewarded for it. But we'll all be equal in our poverty, yay!
... except for the fact that extreme pollution standards result in job losses, and thus economic downturns ...You are in denial if you believe that pollution standards kill jobs ...
When did I say that everybody is out to destroy Christianity? It's obvious that some people here carry some sort of contempt for it, but it's not like that unreasonable, ignorant disdain is any sort of majority.... or that everyone is out to destory Christianity ...
Hahahahah, right. Because when people get paid, they take whatever's left over and buy entire boxes of lottery tickets, right? Do you honestly believe that a person who owns a company won't use the money the company makes to expand the company? No, no, nevermind -- my sides already hurt from reading your comments, I'm not sure I want to hear any more of your hairbrained ideas.... or when you cut some rich person's taxes, that they expand the economy, instead of just putting it all in derivatives (ie bets).
Wow. You actually said something ... true. Not just true, but logical, at that. Maybe you do actually think sometimes.Just like how someone is crazy who thinks that guns lead to increased crime, or that religion causes people to do violent things....im sure theres a few other kooky liberal ideas but these two come to mind the most.
And, I was wrong. Anyway, the fact that morals and ethics are two different things still remains, no matter what you choose to take faith in. If, for some reason, you haven't learned that yet, Ethics classes are GDRs for most college degrees, so you'll learn it then. Theoretically.Pretending evolution doesnt exist doesnt make it go away
How exactly is giving somebody somebody else's money "encouraging independence"?So what you should do is create programs that encourage independence, like financial aid for schooling tied to continued academic performance, especially in the sciences.
Or so that students are encouraged to take on a larger course load than they can handle.And give financial aid based on per credit hour for required courses, not just capping aid per year, so students get out faster.
What type of insurance are you referring to?Or maybe giving the severely disabled insurance even after they go to work.
You made the claim, you prove it. That's how this works, here. Or, wait, wait, let me try: There's a huge conspiracy to make people believe that the sky is blue, when really, it's green. Prove me wrong.Evangelicals dont support those type of programs either. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
You've been tricked into believing that people are poor because some other greedy bastard made them poor. The vast majority of the poor are poor not because they want to be (I never made any comments on whether or not poor people want to be poor), but because they have not done enough to not be poor.Youve been tricked into believe that people are poor because they want to be poor. The truth is, someone made up an excuse to be greedy and you believe it.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because they both keep doing what they did to make them that way in the first place. The rich, generally, continue to educate themselves, continue to invest, continue to advance their companies. The poor, generally, continue to blame others for their situation, expect others to pay for them to get out of it, or simply remain dissatisfied hardly enough to change their situation.
Obamacare provides a federal health insurance, that is the mandate. If somebody doesn't have private insurance, they are forced to have federal insurance. Slowly but surely, Democrats will continue to make private health insurance more and more expensive until enough people choose rely on the already-tax-funded, and thus cheaper, federal option. Eventually, enough of the population will be on federal health insurance that another socialist will mandate it for everybody.Obamacare is almost entirely private insurance, with a mandate. So its actually nothing like Canada or Great Britain. The system its most like is Switzerland, which, by the way, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
I wouldn't say that they are identified with any one particular party. There are people who claim to be Christians that are liberal, there are some that are extremely liberal to the point of socialist, hell, there are supposed Christians who support KKK and neo-naziism. The Republican Party does not, and has never, had the support of any one religion as a whole.
Emphasis mine. Excellent point. That's basically what I've been trying to point out.If your definition of secularism is that people must deny a fundamental aspect of their identity when forming political opinions, you are suppressing religion, which is a different kettle of fish from separating it from the State.
Prettymuch never. Which is why no one party controls every voter in any specific sect. The Democratic Party does not get all of the young vote, or all of the ethnic minority vote, or all of the female vote, and the Republican Party does not get all of the religious vote, or all of the white vote, or all of the middle-class vote.
So, to translate: "I don't care if Christians vote, or that they use their beliefs to influence their vote, but I don't like that whom they vote for."If Jesus went around talking about how big business was the backbone of society or how wealth should be the standard by which we measure success, I would totally support evangelicals voting Republican. But he doesnt.
So why do you claim that the Republican party has a stranglehold on "evangelicals"?To be fair, most of the time I vote I feel like Im choosing between "awful" and "even worse". And I think religious groups feel the same way sometimes.
By the way, my two favorite politicians are Democrats.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
You're gonna need to quote some scripture. Where in Matthew 25 does Jesus give the caveat of "charity" not being "forced"?
(Well, now its illegal, or will be soon, because of Obama's law.)If that is true, and there's no more to the story (like if she knew of a preexisting condition and falsified an application), then it would be illegal, and the insurance will not only be made to fulfill their contractual obligation and provide her with health insurance, but also legally punished and forced to pay fines, either to the government through a criminal trial or to the woman through a civil trial. But I'd like to see a credible cite for that.
Everyone thinks they have good health insurance until they get sick and they find out they dont. Insurance companies have changed the definition of pre-existing condition to almost anything. Prior to Obama's law, if you had an ear infection as a kid they could rescind your coverage when you go to collect your claim for cancer treatment if you didnt tell them about the ear infection. That is, didnt tell them about an inconsequential and unrelated minor illness or injury decades in the past. Its hardly falsifying, since the vast majority of time peoples' coverage was rescinded for things that no one who was sober could call a condition. AIDS is a pre-existing condition, not an ear infection
And the courts seem to agree that this policy over-reaches what was meant be pre-existing condition. But for many years this was common
Im glad you figured that out. Ill take credit for you realizing this, since you clearly didnt know the difference when you wrote your last post, comparing the NHS to Obamacare.First: "Health insurance" and "healthcare" are not synonymous, they are two entirely different things.
Too many words, too much loaded language.But to answer your questions, neither party has attempted to expand legal health insurance -- one specific party has attempted to force an unConstitutional health insurance plan on the populace, forcing taxpayers to fund the bill for health insurance for those who have chosen to not pay for it themselves, then making them go through hoops for other people to decide whether certain medical procedures or treatment methods were "worth it". And neither party has "consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly". Unless you're talking about making health insurance more expensive by refusing to address tort and continually allowing false malpractice cases to cost doctors and hospitals money -- but I don't think you'd care to hear which party supports the "right" to sue anybody, for any amount of money, for any reason.
Summary: You admit Obama expanded insurance, but you think he did so illegally.
Which is a fair point.
See, Im not unresonable. No need for you to get all flustered.
Not really. I use to work for Dow Chemical which is the largest chemical company in the world, and is a leader in sustainability. The EPA isnt perfect, and sometimes Dow has actually been punished for being so eco-friendly. I remember when the EPA had a list of substances all companies need to reduce emissions of a certain percent. Well, Dow had already done all the cheap stuff to lower emissions so short of rebuilding 50 year old buildings there wasnt much they could do.Your question should be, "which party has attempted to block or slow extreme pollution standards, which cost American jobs?" American companies already have to jump through hoops and go to extremes to obey current pollution standards, which costs them productivity and money that could (and otherwise would) be used to expand their company.
But of course thats a special case. Most companies just drag their feet. It doesnt cost much to dispose of substances safer or to buy some cleaner equipment. And remember that money is going somewhere. When a company buys cleaner equipment they are putting money into the economy. Its the trickle down theory you guys love so much.
You have unrealistic expectations on how to pay for college.Which party has continually pushed for indivuals to be responsible for themselves and work to put themselves through college, instead of letting them demand taxpayer money that will not be repaid, just so they can get a mediocre education in a field with no demand?
"Which (opposing) party has continually pushed for money to be taken out of the hands of those who have earned it, to be redistributed to those who wish for further education but weren't good enough to get a scholarship and aren't responsible enough to work their way through college, like millions upon millions of other people have without demanding federal funds?"
How did you pay for college?
lolAnd you really need to stop making your ignorance so obvious -- 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
No, only the investment bankers. And thats mainly who I was talking about. You do know the average salary at Goldman Sachs right?What, did every rich person steal their money?
I was obviously talking about individuals.Hahahahah, right. Because when people get paid, they take whatever's left over and buy entire boxes of lottery tickets, right? Do you honestly believe that a person who owns a company won't use the money the company makes to expand the company? No, no, nevermind -- my sides already hurt from reading your comments, I'm not sure I want to hear any more of your hairbrained ideas.
Note to self: You have no idea what a derivative is.
medicaid waiverWhat type of insurance are you referring to?
Well thats easy. No programs like those exist, and democrats would support it if they were ever proposed by republicans.You made the claim, you prove it. That's how this works, here. Or, wait, wait, let me try: There's a huge conspiracy to make people believe that the sky is blue, when really, it's green. Prove me wrong.
What?Obamacare provides a federal health insurance, that is the mandate. If somebody doesn't have private insurance, they are forced to have federal insurance. Slowly but surely, Democrats will continue to make private health insurance more and more expensive until enough people choose rely on the already-tax-funded, and thus cheaper, federal option. Eventually, enough of the population will be on federal health insurance that another socialist will mandate it for everybody.
I know it was 1200 pages long or whatever but you need to go over to Kaiser's website and at least read a summary of the law, because you are not even close to correct. Theres no "federal" option, unless you mean Medicaid, which is state run (ie not Federal), and free.
No wonder you hate the law, you have no idea what it does!
a quick google search says 78% vote republican. that was for midterm election, maybe a bit different in generalSo why do you claim that the Republican party has a stranglehold on "evangelicals"?
Cool story broBy the way, my two favorite politicians are Democrats.
You should really check up on Matthew 25. Nowhere in Matthew 25 does it say anything about people being forced to give -- having your money stolen and redistributed is not "charity".
In fact, the entire chapter is about what people have done willingly -- what they've chosen to do -- with what they have. If I remember correctly, it's made up of three parables. Out of the three men with sixteen talents among them, the one who refused to invest his talent is the disappointment. AND HE WAS NOT GIVEN ANOTHER. Out of the ten women who went to meet the bridegroom, the five who squandered their lamp oil are the disappointment. AND THEY WERE NOT GIVEN MORE. And, of course, nowhere does it say in the third tale, "you had worked for financial success, so you had your money stolen from you and redistributed to me when I was poor, so come, ye who are blessed."
While you're out googling Matthew 25, try looking up the definition of the word "charity". Involuntary "charity" is not charity at all.
And check out 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
It was illegal before, and it still is. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.(Well, now its illegal, or will be soon, because of Obama's law.)
By the way, where's that credible cite I asked about?
When an insurance company asks you about any past conditions, injuries, and illnesses, and you leave something out, that's on you. It would be just like hiding from your car insurance company that you've totalled the last half-dozen vehicles you've driven before you applied for their insurance.Prior to Obama's law, if you had an ear infection as a kid they could rescind your coverage when you go to collect your claim for cancer treatment if you didnt tell them about the ear infection. That is, didnt tell them about an inconsequential and unrelated minor illness or injury decades in the past. Its hardly falsifying, since the vast majority of time peoples' coverage was rescinded for things that no one who was sober could call a condition.
But while we're at it, do you have anything other than your own word that says somebody was dropped, legally, because they didn't inform their health insurance company of an ear infection "decades in the past"?
So you're trying to say that, before Obama, it was common for health insurance to cancel or refuse coverage because of simple things like ear infections, and that, before Obama, it was completely legal ... but the courts agreed that it wasn't legal? Get your story straight, kid.And the courts seem to agree that this policy over-reaches what was meant be pre-existing condition.
Actually, no, I didn't "compare" Obamacare to NHS. I compared NHS and Canadian Medicare to the program that Obama suggested, not the one that he actually got passed. However, I also made the distinction that Obamacare will slowly but surely be advanced to the point of NHS and Canadian Medicare. Are you trying to be ignorant because get a kick out of it, or are you actually serious with these asinine accusations?Im glad you figured that out. Ill take credit for you realizing this, since you clearly didnt know the difference when you wrote your last post, comparing the NHS to Obamacare.
How 'bout no, kid. Try reading it again -- attempting to force people to buy insurance, then having taxpayers fund it anyway, and bragging that Omaba "expanded insurance" is like setting somebody's house on fire and bragging that you provided them with heat through the winter.Too many words, too much loaded language.
Summary: You admit Obama expanded insurance, but you think he did so illegally.
By the way, it's not just me that realizes that parts of it are unConstitutional -- a little something called the Supreme Court also says so.
Again I will ask for a credible cite, and again I will expect nothing.Not really. I use to work for Dow Chemical which is the largest chemical company in the world, and is a leader in sustainability. The EPA isnt perfect, and sometimes Dow has actually been punished for being so eco-friendly. I remember when the EPA had a list of substances all companies need to reduce emissions of a certain percent. Well, Dow had already done all the cheap stuff to lower emissions so short of rebuilding 50 year old buildings there wasnt much they could do.
First, that wouldn't be "trickle-down" at all -- that would be forcing a company to spend money on unnecessary equipment that they could be spending on, say, hiring new employees, developing new technology, or building a new plant. If you're going to use an idea, make sure you know what it is. And second, the United States has some of the strictest pollution standards in the world, partly because of the UN, Kyoto Protocol, etc., even when "developing" countries are still allowed to pump more pollution out in a month, with less production, than the United States does in a year. And do you really believe that most companies would rather "drag their feet" than do things that, according to you, don't cost much, then use their high pollution standards as advertisement?But of course thats a special case. Most companies just drag their feet. It doesnt cost much to dispose of substances safer or to buy some cleaner equipment. And remember that money is going somewhere. When a company buys cleaner equipment they are putting money into the economy. Its the trickle down theory you guys love so much.
So millions upon millions of people haven't paid their own way through college? Nobody gets a job to pay for their schooling and residence, nobody takes a couple years off after high school to save up enough money for college?You have unrealistic expectations on how to pay for college.
Yes, I'm aware of Obama's NSA's estimate of less than a hundred. I'm glad you laughed -- I found it quite comedic that you actually believe it. Though I can't say I'm surprised.
Saying that there are only 100 or 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would be like saying that the United States military is less than 50,000 personnel, because that's how many are in SOCOM. Or that the U.S. only has a few million children in it, because that's how many teachers we count.
Ah, I got it. So ... ummm ... yeah, so it's still ignorant.No, only the investment bankers. And thats mainly who I was talking about.
You do know the difference between mean and median, right? Mean, median, mode, you should have learned those in middle school. Do you know the median salary at Goldman Sachs?You do know the average salary at Goldman Sachs right?
And when you calculate salaries (or, rather, read a blog that somebody else "calculated" on) for those employed by Goldman Sachs, do you include the millions that have been made by Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and Presidential candidates?
And, praytell, how many people just "fell into money"? How many people became rich just by "chance", like winning the lottery, instead of through investments or company ownership?I was obviously talking about individuals.
If I were you, I would write that note to myself, as well, considering the fact that you referred to them as "bets".Note to self: You have no idea what a derivative is.
If they are well enough to work, why should they still be leeching taxpayer money? There are plenty of different Medicaid waivers for those with developmental disabilities, and many of them are still available to those with disabilities while they are working, provided that they are earning under a certain income level -- I'm not sure what you're trying to complain about, here.medicaid waiver
So your idea of "proving" that specific issues are not supported by a certain group of people is stating that those specific programs don't exist, so they must not have support from that particular group of people? Really, at this point, the ignorance can't be accidental.Well thats easy. No programs like those exist, and democrats would support it if they were ever proposed by republicans.
Democrats had control of the White House and both houses of Congress for the first two years of both Clinton's and Obama's presidency. If Democrats would support it, as you so claim, it would have been pushed through when they had the power to push nearly anything through, even if it wasn't supported by evangelicals.
At this point, I've reasoned that it would be nearly be impossible for you to naturally be this ignorant, so even though you probably won't understand this, I'll explain it just in case somebody else is reading this and isn't quite sure about it.What?
I know it was 1200 pages long or whatever but you need to go over to Kaiser's website and at least read a summary of the law, because you are not even close to correct. Theres no "federal" option, unless you mean Medicaid, which is state run (ie not Federal), and free.
Obamacare basically forces people to buy health insurance. If they don't, they will pay slightly higher taxes to be put on a "federal insurance" plan. Hence, the "mandate" -- you can either buy your own insurance, or you'll be put on the dole for a federal HMO.
By the way, "free" and "taxpayer-funded" are in no way synonymous.
And Medicaid is state-controlled, but majority of its funding comes from the federal level. Which is why the federal government has to approve nearly everything the state wants to do.
So the way that the majority of a group votes in one mid-term election dictates that the entire group belongs to that party. Got it.a quick google search says 78% vote republican. that was for midterm election, maybe a bit different in general
I mean, really? You're a horrible comedian. And I only say that because of all of the bad jokes in your post. Prettymuch your entire post has to be a joke. I mean, it is a joke, but you meant it as a joke, right? Right? Please tell me you meant it as a joke.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Im not playing games with you. I know what youre doing. Complain about someone not citing (while you continually cite nothing) then when I do cite something you say “ROFL [irrelevant comment here]”.
What!?Actually, no, I didn't "compare" Obamacare to NHS. I compared NHS and Canadian Medicare to the program that Obama suggested
So you didnt compare Obamacare to NHS, you compared NHS to Obamacare.
Oh, okay.
Even if that sentence made any sense at all, you are still wrong and comparing not two, but three completely different styled programs.
I think what you meant to say is that Obama wanted a single payer system, which is not true.
comparison of obama’s and actual plan
(I know you wont actually read it, but I posted the link for anyone else reading this thread because it has good information for responsible adults who do not wish to remain ignorant about serious issues.)
If you had actually done any research at all on this topic you would know Obama did not want to decide what was in the healthcare law, because this is what Clinton did, and its why Clinton failed at healthcare reform. So Obama gave very few guidelines, as seen in the above link.
Not to mention that you still don’t understand the difference between Canada’s Medicare and the NHS (or Obamacare, for that matter).
Yawn. Another banal (that means "unoriginal") argument from you.try looking up the definition of the word "charity". Involuntary "charity" is not charity at all.
People like you are a dime a dozen.
The problem is, its only when the government is giving money to you that you dont see it as a waste.
Some white man who looks like GI Joe who uses government aid to get him out of a hole-well you think thats perfectly acceptable! Hes just trying to make a living so he can have 8 kids who can grow up and vote Republican and collect Medicare. Thats all American. But once some poor person from Detroit or Cleveland tries to get health insurance for their kid with Duchenne's, everything changes, because they are just lazy and ambitionless parasites just trying to steal of the hard working man.
you're so against government handouts and socialized medicine, but you know as well as I do you will be first in line when you're 65 to cash your social security check and get your Medicare payed for scooter.
Because......you think you deserve it, right? its those "other people" who dont deserve it! People like you go retire at age 54 and spend the next 40 years collecting some fatass state or military pension while they sit around listening to people like Glenn Beck, without irony, talking about people mooching off the government.
You created a dichotomy (that means, two things that are seperate and opposite) where when the government gives you money its okay, but once someone who is not you gets money, well thats just a waste of your hard earned tax money.
The truth is that everyone relies on the government, in some way or another. Maybe its through farm subsidies, or military contracts, or grants in academia, but everyone is dependent on government financing.
And you know this. This is why you didnt say how you payed for college, because you know you didnt pay for it, and chances are the government did in some way or another.
To bring this thread back to the original topic, Sasquatch is exhibit A in why religion should be separate from politics. Even if you dont believe that it hurts society, it hurts the religion too. Christianity is a beautiful religion, but Sasquatch has actually said capitalism is one of its principles. When you read Ayn Rand and then read the Bible and come away with the same take home message, something is wrong. Thats a perversion of Christianity
Asking for a credible cite to put some evidence towards your bullshit story? How dare I?
I asked you for a cite, and the one you provided was irrelevant, and on an entirely different topic. I've been posting facts which are common knowledge to, well, prettymuch everybody. But if you might actually learn something, tell me what you need a citation for, and I would be happy to provide it.Complain about someone not citing (while you continually cite nothing) then when I do cite something you say “ROFL [irrelevant comment here]”.
Obamacare is the bill that was passed, not Obama's original plan. I'm really not sure how you can be a functional human being without the capacity to understand simple concepts like this -- I compared NHS with Obama's original plan. Neither of which are Obamacare.So you didnt compare Obamacare to NHS, you compared NHS to Obamacare.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." -Barack Obama, 2003I think what you meant to say is that Obama wanted a single payer system, which is not true.
Again, I'm not sure how this can be difficult for you to understand. Obama said nearly a decade ago that he was a proponent of a single-payer system, but that the only thing standing in the way was that Democrats didn't have control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Since then, Democrats have gained control of all three (and have since lost one), and Obama has taken that opportunity to push through what will evolve into a single-payer system.
See, again, I'm not saying that Obamacare is a fully single-payer system. I haven't said that at all. But the fact remains that it does have a single-payer mandate for a certain portion of the population.
If it's unoriginal, you should have heard it before. And if you've heard it before, you have no excuse for not knowing.Yawn. Another banal (that means "unoriginal") argument from you.
I haven't had the government "give" me any money at all.The problem is, its only when the government is giving money to you that you dont see it as a waste.
Wow -- you serious? Now, I figured that you'd eventually bust out Godwin's Law or call me racist, but I didn't realize that you are so ignorant as to fall back on it already.Some white man who looks like GI Joe who uses government aid to get him out of a hole-well you think thats perfectly acceptable! Hes just trying to make a living so he can have 8 kids who can grow up and vote Republican and collect Medicare. Thats all American. But once some poor person from Detroit or Cleveland tries to get health insurance for their kid with Duchenne's, everything changes, because they are just lazy and ambitionless parasites just trying to steal of the hard working man.
So if it's a white guy, you think I'm fine with it, but if it's somebody fron Detroit or Cleveland -- hence, a minority -- then you think I'd just assume they're "lazy and ambitionless parasites".
Lemme guess ... next, you're going to try to BS your way into "well I never said it was a black guy from Detroit or Cleveland ..."
Is there anything else that you want to ignorantly assume about me? (By the way, I won't need to be "first in line" for Social Security, because I'm responsible enough to save for my own retirement.)you're so against government handouts and socialized medicine, but you know as well as I do you will be first in line when you're 65 to cash your social security check and get your Medicare payed for scooter.
Anybody who pays their fair share into Social Security deserves to get their own money back out. Why wouldn't they?Because......you think you deserve it, right? its those "other people" who dont deserve it!
You mean, you think "people like me" serve in a state or military position for long enough to earn a pension, then use their pension? Oh no, what freeloaders! Taking what they've earned, how dare they?People like you go retire at age 54 and spend the next 40 years collecting some fatass state or military pension while they sit around listening to people like Glenn Beck, without irony, talking about people mooching off the government.
Never cared for Beck, either. Anything else you'd like to assume?
According to whom?You created a dichotomy (that means, two things that are seperate and opposite) where when the government gives you money its okay, but once someone who is not you gets money, well thats just a waste of your hard earned tax money.
Or are you truly ignorant enough to believe that somebody who works a public job is being "given" a paycheck?
Not everybody in the private sector relies on government funding of some sort -- more often than not, government funding just screws with the market. Which is why you have federal grants going towards students who get accepted to college with ACT scores of 15 that will obviously not finish, federal funding going to farmers for leaving their fields empty, etc. etc.The truth is that everyone relies on the government, in some way or another. Maybe its through farm subsidies, or military contracts, or grants in academia, but everyone is dependent on government financing.
Actually, I didn't say how I paid for college because it's none of your business. But you know how I mentioned the millions upon millions of people who either work their way through college or work for a few years to save money, or both? I did both, which is why I had a job through every semester of college, which I didn't start until four years after I graduated high school. I didn't receive, nor did I request, one cent of taxpayer money, though I qualified for multiple types.And you know this. This is why you didnt say how you payed for college, because you know you didnt pay for it, and chances are the government did in some way or another.
Any other stupid accusations you want to throw out there, or do you actually have a sense of shame?
No, I haven't. I've said that they share many of the same principles, but I have not "actually said capitalism is one of its principles". Any other stupid quotes you want to attribute to me?Christianity is a beautiful religion, but Sasquatch has actually said capitalism is one of its principles.
You have shown that you know very little about ... well, many things, but that long list includes Christianity and capitalism. And let's add Ayn Rand to that list, because it's a well-known fact that she was not only an Atheist, but very much against Christianity. Ayn Rand was an anarcho-capitalist, and though she would hate being associated with both anarchy and libertarianism, she would fit more closely into an "anarchist" label.When you read Ayn Rand and then read the Bible and come away with the same take home message, something is wrong. Thats a perversion of Christianity
So ... are you just horrible at trolling, or are you really this stupid?
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Saying you want something, 5 years before you take office, is not a plan. Its something you want. In fact he didnt even say he wanted it, he just said he was a proponent (that means he likes it)
plan. noun. a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance
Im guessing you will cling to the developed in advance part, but its not a scheme of acting.
speculation. citation that he is planning this? (remember, a plan is a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc.)and Obama has taken that opportunity to push through what will evolve into a single-payer system.
Source? (dont bother looking it doesnt have any single payer mandidate)See, again, I'm not saying that Obamacare is a fully single-payer system. I haven't said that at all. But the fact remains that it does have a single-payer mandate for a certain portion of the population.
But you did take itI haven't had the government "give" me any money at all.
The point remains the same. Anything for you is okay, anything for anyone else is a waste. And you'll still be cashing those SS checks.So if it's a white guy, you think I'm fine with it, but if it's somebody fron Detroit or Cleveland -- hence, a minority -- then you think I'd just assume they're "lazy and ambitionless parasites".
Lemme guess ... next, you're going to try to BS your way into "well I never said it was a black guy from Detroit or Cleveland ..."
Is there anything else that you want to ignorantly assume about me? (By the way, I won't need to be "first in line" for Social Security, because I'm responsible enough to save for my own retirement.)
Again, the point remains the same. If you're going to complain about government handouts, then ya you're gonna be called out whenever you take government money.Anybody who pays their fair share into Social Security deserves to get their own money back out. Why wouldn't they?
You mean, you think "people like me" serve in a state or military position for long enough to earn a pension, then use their pension? Oh no, what freeloaders! Taking what they've earned, how dare they?
Of course you dont. And you dont like Rand either and you dont Kiss Reagan's ass and you vote with an open mind, just like everyone else on the internetNever cared for Beck, either.
Everyone gets government money. Its difficult to determine what is worth the money, and what isnt. John McCain may not think studying bear DNA is worth it. Other people might think that state employees are compensated too much. The decent thing to do is to take what money is yours, and stop complaining like a little girl whenever someone else gets something.According to whom?
Or are you truly ignorant enough to believe that somebody who works a public job is being "given" a paycheck?
sourceNot everybody in the private sector relies on government funding of some sort
source (this one is not common knowledge, so you have to source it. Idk wtf college you went to, but mine didnt have anyone who "obviously will not finish"Which is why you have federal grants going towards students who get accepted to college with ACT scores of 15 that will obviously not finish, federal funding going to farmers for leaving their fields empty, etc. etc.
All colleges receive public money, even private ones (although they obviously do less). Example: NIH funding. And all that factors in to tuition costsActually, I didn't say how I paid for college because it's none of your business. But you know how I mentioned the millions upon millions of people who either work their way through college or work for a few years to save money, or both? I did both, which is why I had a job through every semester of college, which I didn't start until four years after I graduated high school. I didn't receive, nor did I request, one cent of taxpayer money, though I qualified for multiple types.
Honestly, is there a big difference? so what if you havent. its still disgustingNo, I haven't. I've said that they share many of the same principles, but I have not "actually said capitalism is one of its principles".
Because he admitted to be a proponent for it, he publicly advocated for it, he admitted that "we" would have to wait until Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, he even pointed out "we may not get there immediately". Only a complete imbecile would believe, even for a second, that Obama never planned to move towards a single-payer system.
Which has been made very clear.
The entire point of Obamacare is to force people to buy insurance, and if they don't, they'll pay a fine and be placed on Medicaid. So let me explain this again, slower -- if they don't buy private insurance, they are mandated to pay to be put on a government program.Source? (dont bother looking it doesnt have any single payer mandidate)
Try this -- look up what a single-payer system is, then come back to it. You'll get it. Eventually. Maybe.
And if you want a source -- here's an article about it being found unConstitutional, which would also further my point that it is, well, unConstitutional.
And just for funsies, I'll point back to a post you made a few days ago, in which you said, and I quote, "Obamacare is almost entirely private insurance, with a mandate."
I took nothing that was given to me. If you honestly believe that earning and being given are synonymous, that paychecks and handouts are the same thing, then you are beyond help.But you did take it
But I wouldn't be surprised, considering that you've already made clear your opinion that income redistribution is "charity".
Your original point was "anything for white people is okay, anything for people that might not be white is bad".The point remains the same. Anything for you is okay, anything for anyone else is a waste.
The SS checks will be my own money, considering the fact that by that point, I will have been paying into SS for forty years.And you'll still be cashing those SS checks.
That the government has taken my money, then given some of it back, does not make it "government money". By that lack of anything resembling logic, you're accepting a handout whenever you get your own tax refund back, or whenever you get change after buying something.Again, the point remains the same. If you're going to complain about government handouts, then ya you're gonna be called out whenever you take government money.
Beck is a schmuck. Same reason I don't care for O'Reilly, or Boortz, or Limbaugh. Rand has some good points, but like I've already pointed out, she's an anarcho-capitalist. Reagan is by far the greatest president the United States has ever had. And I have voted for, and supported, members of either party.Of course you dont. And you dont like Rand either and you dont Kiss Reagan's ass and you vote with an open mind, just like everyone else on the internet
But I'm sure you know me better than I do, so go ahead and keep throwing out stupid accusations and assumptions on what kind of person I am and what I do and don't support.
No, not everybody gets government money, and no, it's not difficult to determine what's worth it and what isn't. If it's worth it, the private sector will pursue it. If it's not, the government will throw taxpayer money at it -- which is why Chevy didn't come out with the Volt until the federal government decided that each one sold is worth about $250 million of federal tax dollars.Everyone gets government money. Its difficult to determine what is worth the money, and what isnt.
Actually, the decent thing to do woult be to not take anything you can get your hands on, and to encourage others to do the same, to the point of voting to make those handouts unavailable. You may not have a problem voting for men with the power to force people more successful than you to give you some of their paycheck, but that doesn't sit too well with me.The decent thing to do is to take what money is yours, and stop complaining like a little girl whenever someone else gets something.
The initial claim was yours, kid. Hence, any obligation for citation falls upon you.source
Here's a short list of the Cal State system, with a couple of their schools accepting 15 and lower Composite ACT scores.source (this one is not common knowledge, so you have to source it. Idk wtf college you went to, but mine didnt have anyone who "obviously will not finish"
And here's an article about $1.3b in federal subsidies going to people who don't farm at all. I wish I could find more, including articles about Con-Agra, which literally gets money for farmers to leave their fields empty, but that's enough for now.
Yes, there is a big difference between saying, "capitalism is a a principle of Christianity," and saying, "capitalism and Christianity share many of the same principles."Honestly, is there a big difference?
Awwwwwww, now I'm hurt ...so what if you havent. its still disgusting
Oh, by the way. You're still on the tab for a cite for a woman who is getting dropped by her health insurance because she got breast cancer, that evangelicals don't believe in global warming (not man-made global warming, but global warming as a whole), that anybody was legally dropped by a health insurance provider because they had had ear infections decades in the past, that Dow "has actually been punished for being so eco-friendly", or ... You know what? Just do what you do. I still haven't figured out if you're a bad troll or just extremely foolish, but I'll let this next post of yours decide. If you come back with sources and a well-thought-out argument backed up by facts and logic, I will welcome the change and continue the debate. If you come back with your usual drivel, I will let you claim victory -- as I'm sure you will -- and leave it be. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Thats not how it works, (and thats not what the link you gave said). The link you gave said the individual mandate (which is a mandate to buy PRIVATE insurance) is unconstitutional.
Again, Im looking for a source that says people who dont buy private insurance get placed on a single-payer government program and they must pay for that program.
My source is the link posted earlier on the Kaiser Family Foundations website. What actually happens, here in reality, is that you can either buy insurance or get on medicaid (a FREE single payer system, with the exception of copays. You certainly dont pay to be put on it). if you dont qualify for medicaid, and dont buy insurance, then you pay a fine. thats it. thats the law. if you would stop listening to Beck for your information you would know this.
You obviously cant handle more than one point at a time, so address this issue and I will address the rest of your post.
Last edited by Shine Dalgarno; 12-23-2011 at 02:11 PM.
You are your own source. This is not a difficult thing to understand, and if you'd put away your pompousness, you might admit what you already know, and even what you've already said: If you don't buy your own private insurance, you pay to be put on a single-payer system.
You don't buy insurance. The federal government makes you pay a fine. The federal government puts you on a government-run single-payer health insurance system.
Duh.
Again, this is not a difficult concept. Obviously, you already know it, but simply refuse to admit it.
Again. You pay, and you're put on a government program. It's that simple.
You haven't had any points yet. Nearly everything I'm doing is either repelling asinine assumptions and attacks or clearing up your ignorance, manipulations, and misunderstandings.You obviously cant handle more than one point at a time, so address this issue and I will address the rest of your post.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
source. why dont you just quote the actual law
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks