The upcoming election

[phissionkorps]

Getting back on topic, some issues that would force me to vote for any candidate, regardless of anything else:

Unhindered stemm cell research.
I don't appreciate how the government can look at the potential SC research has to offer, and say "pass". Sure, you could use legally and consentually obtained stem cells, sure, you would save billions of lives (over time), but nah...that'd be against god.

Ab0r+i0n.
I bet no one is going to agree with me on this one, since I have yet to find anyone who does, but you have the religious right saying that "medical procedure is murder", and everyone else saying they don't care about the issue, or women have the right to choose (well i think men should have a right too, we're the ones that have to pay for said child). In my eyes, a baby shouldn't be considered life until it can survive on its own. I don't mean find its own food and stuff, but I mean not dying shortly after being born. Premature babies would have absolutely no chance of surviving if it wasn't for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in medical care. Until 8 months or whatever, when a child can survive without critical care, medical procedure should be perfectly legal and NOT AN ISSUE. Of course, the people that get mad about medical procedure think they have god on their side, but wait...how many people throughout history have thought they had god on their side, and proved to be wrong? Oh wait...all of them.

Abolish welfare and social security.
I don't like my hard earned money going to other people. If you work a mediocre job because of lack of education, disability, whathaveyou...when you retire, move somewhere cheap like Oklahoma or Bulgaria. If you don't have the foresight to save and budget your own money and expect the gov't to do it for you: thanks for playing the game of life...you lose.

 

[schloaty]

Quote[/b] ] It seems to me people like Mokele and JustLikeAPill have a bigger agenda than just getting equal rights for Gays/Lesbians. They want to use the law of the land to try and make homosexuality MORALLY equal to traditional marriage of two opposite sexes. It's never been about the civil rights of being married, it's always been about trying to be morally acceptable and it is not!

Well, this is an interesting idea - though I beleive you are wrong about the "never been about civil rights" part.

I mean, can you blame them for saying that they are, in fact, of equal morality? There is NO, I REPEAT NO, hard, scientific evidence to the contrary.

All moral judgements on sexuality are born from emotion and/or religion.

Also, if you think that it's immoral, fine. Stay in the closet and be miserable your whole life. But don't try and impress your morals on others who may not share them.

If your argument for their imorality is a religios one, well, then too bad. You can't have a say in the laws. Not allowed.

You cannot show how it harms other people, because it doesn't. Keep your nose out of other peoples' bedrooms.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Oct. 26 2006,4:50)]The war on terror... Terrorists people aren't just generally hateful people who arbitrarily pick the U.S. or Israel to bomb. They are willing to commit suicide because they somehow believe they're doing society a favor. If we were really helping folks out, they wouldn't hate. If they had comfortable lives, they probably wouldn't hate us. The fact is that U.S. foreign policy with our need to control everybody's problem while we sit here watching it through our giant plasma TV's has made us as many enemies as friends.

There are many reasons why terrorists chose to target the United States and Isreal, and the reasons differ for each target. The United States is in my opinion the worlds bully, economically and militarily. We often prop up unpopular dicators who are favorable to the United States regaurdless of how the people of that country feel. The United States also seeks peace at the end of a gun barrel. Just because we have the power to decimate a country does not mean we should. I also firmly believe that violence results in a violent responce, hence our violent attacks result in returned violence. ALso if anyone says they hate our freedom all I have to say that is why dont the bomb the dutch then (arguably the most liberal and free people of earth in my opinion)

Isreal is the target of terrorists because of its turblent past, its current policies twords it neighbors, its occupation of Palestine and mistreatment of Palestinians, its refusal to listen to the world community, its war crimes, etc..

To lump the two countries together as being attacked for the same reasons is a falicy, the people who attack Isreal do not attack the United States and if they do its only because our support of Isreals unpopular actions (look at the US response to Isreal invading Lebanon, we rushed them more bombs, Also the United States gives about 4 billion a year to Isreal for defence, this makes us unpopular in the Middle East as Isreal often uses their "defence froce" to attack its neighbors) Obiously this is a more complex issue than i have summed up here and im sure their are topics i did not address but im posting on a forum not writing a diseratation here.

 

[Clint]

Quote[/b] (Sarrfiend @ Oct. 26 2006,3:56)]It seems to me people like Mokele and JustLikeAPill have a bigger agenda than just getting equal rights for Gays/Lesbians.  They want to use the law of the land to try and make homosexuality MORALLY equal to traditional marriage of two opposite sexes.  It's never been about the civil rights of being married, it's always been about trying to be morally acceptable and it is not!

It's already morally equal and acceptable to most people.

Thanks for joining just to say that. It really means a lot. Really helps your credibility. Who do you think you are, anyway?

And you know, why we are at it, where do you people get off making such a big deal out of marriage and morality? Have you forgotten that the divorce rate is about 50%, and the other 50% most definately has some infidelity in a good portion of it. Where is this "sanctity of marriage" all you people talk about? I sure don't see it. Who are you as a citezen of the US to define morality? Are you god? where is this god anyway? I can't believe in those things that don't believe in me. YOU do NOT define morality for ME nor anyone else and I don't for you. What are you afraid of? men having sex in the streets, parks and shoolyards? Afraid of Amyl Nitrate stands popping up next to your Hooters? Your conspiracy theory just makes you sounds paranoid  Sorry, hate to ruin your fantasies. Not going to happen. You might find us in the PTA meetings, though.


Man, It's really hard to censor yourself.

 

[Capslock]

Deep breaths JLAP! Take deep breaths! LOL!

Of course you're right about this. I don't actually take issue with people following their religious beliefs. That is their absolute right, and I'll fight to preserve their right to do just that.

The problem is when things go from "having an opinion" to supporting a law that affects others. Advocating bringing the power of government to bear against others is not "just expressing an opinion". It's materially and physically imposing on others. Which in some cases is called for (murderers, etc.) But in cases like that, it goes well beyond having beliefs or opinions and into the realm of concrete action.

And this goes to the original question about what are the important election issues. Remember, this country was founded to escape religious persecution, and to set up a country where you can be any religion, or none at all. Everyone's rights are respected provided they aren't breaking the law and hurting others. Freedom and liberty were words and concepts heavily used by our founding fathers. And preserving their views and radical (for the time) ideas is what's important to me in the next election.

Capslock

 

[Clint]

Oooh boy you'r right caps.

I'm sorry for insulting your religion. What I was trying to say is that god doesn't get a vote in america.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] (Sarrfiend @ Oct. 26 2006,12:56)]It seems to me people like Mokele and JustLikeAPill have a bigger agenda than just getting equal rights for Gays/Lesbians. They want to use the law of the land to try and make homosexuality MORALLY equal to traditional marriage of two opposite sexes. It's never been about the civil rights of being married, it's always been about trying to be morally acceptable and it is not!

AAAAAHAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry, but this is TOO rich, guys. Here we have a conversation where people are bringing up some logical, meaningful points from reliable sources. We have pages of discussion which delves deep in to a contravercial issue in a meaninful and educated manner.

Than some no-name comes in and takes a crap on logic.

Bless this internet!

Ahhh, I think I need to change my pants.

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]It seems to me people like Mokele and JustLikeAPill have a bigger agenda than just getting equal rights for Gays/Lesbians. They want to use the law of the land to try and make homosexuality MORALLY equal to traditional marriage of two opposite sexes. It's never been about the civil rights of being married, it's always been about trying to be morally acceptable and it is not!

For someone with a whopping one post, you seem to know us well.

Since the painfully obvious seems to ellude you, I'll spell it out for you: While I believe that people like Outsiders71 and yourself are no better than racists or the Taliban, I firmly believe you have a right to your opinions, no matter how mis-informed and hateful.

However, your right to have opinions on my sexuality does *NOT* extend to denying me basic civil rights. You can claim I'm an evil monster all you like; plenty of people already do, but the basis of this country's freedom is that I can live my life without you imposing your morality on me, and vice versa. If you don't like that, go live somewhere with a climate more to your tastes, like Iran.

Mokele

 

[phissionkorps]

hahaha Mokele you are my hero

 

[Clint]

Well... I may hate people like them but I wouldn't compare them to the taliban.. they aren't that radical...

 

[schloaty]

Quote[/b] ]Well... I may hate people like them but I wouldn't compare them to the taliban.. they aren't that radical...

Seriously! Time for Mokele to simmer down. Go block a river & cool off, Mr. Mbembe.

Kidding asside, that is a rather radical comparisson. They're not, after all, out trying to KILL you. Some might argue they're even doing you a FAVOR in preventing you from getting married, lol. I say let you suffer along with the rest of us!

JLAP, this may sound sactimoneous (wow! Check out THAT verbiage), but don't HATE them. Hate their beleifs, fine, but not them. They, like any people, are deeper than any one beleif may lead you to beleive.

I don't hate anyone for having a differing oppinion from me. If they try to impose their oppinion on me or others in a way I object to, I will surely stand against it. Doesn't mean I have to hate them. Hate only breeds more hate (Gosh, I really DO sound sanctimoneous).

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]Kidding asside, that is a rather radical comparisson. They're not, after all, out trying to KILL you.

Yet. I wouldn't put it past them, in all seriousness. Human nature, especially that of fanatics, is depressingly predictable and predictably depressing.

Also, is it really such a bad comparison? The only difference is the level of success achieved in their goals, which are identical: the imposition of their religion's code on *everyone*, without consent or consideration.

I use that likeness deliberately to shock, with the hopes that it will bring the realization that the two groups are almost identical in motivations, goals, and even language.

Before you dismiss this, google "Dominionists" or "Dominionism". People openly advocating turning the US into a theocracy, with mandatory adherence to christian law and even death for those who oppose or break those laws are real. And they are *not* some group of isolated loonies in the mountains somewhere: they have *millions* of dollars at their disposal, a strong support base in the extant Christian Right, and have the ear of politicians at all levels of government.

I'm not claiming some doomsday scenario; Stupid as it may be to place my faith in a species that has proven totally unworthy of such, I do believe that their goals would never be allowed to be implemented. But the fact is that these people are closer to reality than you thought or feared remains, and that the Christian Right has *explicit*, *open* and deep ties to openly Dominionist groups.

But most of all, I am sick of the hypocracy of politicians who claim that we've "brought freedom to those under an oppresive religious regime", but then turn around and legislate their religion's morals as law, unable to see that they are doing precisely what has lead to Islamic states in the Middle East.

Yes, my analogy is shocking, and it's meant to be. But I believe it does hold water, and the likeness is accurate enough that the comparison can be made in a meaningful fashion.

Mokele

 

[Clint]

Well.. some of them have killed a few of us but that's a very very very small minority. The rest just beat us lol

JOKE PEOPLE!


Schloaty, no, I don't really hate them hate them. I don't like them, that's certain. I feel sorry for them because they are so ignorant.

Woo i'm glad this thread is fizzling out.

 

[Travis]

I usually keep out of these topics but, more power to you Mokele and JLAP!

 

[Rubra]

Alright, this is interesting... Outsider is the one guy who says he compassion for us all. His views are based on what he believes is best for people and society. Whether that should be translated into legislature is his own choice as well as yours; every voice is heard equally at the polls. It has always been those on moral high ground that keep society from degrading into anarchy. That's one of history's simple secrets.

That brings us back to natural law. The nature of anything in existence comes with rules of existence. If anything breaks the rules of its own existence, it ceases to exist at the same level. This certainly applies to people. We die physically because our bodies stop doing what they're meant to do. We die on another level when we ourselves don't do what we're meant to do. Hate hurts you, anger hurts you, unfaithfulness hurts you, apathy kills you. Whether you're giving or recieving. Love, peace, faithfulness and caring are all recognized as good because they are ways of life.

Here's the Christian perspective. God has never broken the rules of his existence, so he lives forever. The rest of us all screw up our own lives, and kill ourselves. Those of us who follow him do so because he's offering life, and life forever. We do as he says, because he's the ultimate authority on natural law. You can't argue that anything written in the Bible is bad for you. So whether you accept God love or no, his commandments still stand flawless.

cheers,
Peter

 

[Clint]

Ahh peter! A reasonable, unbiased christian! Finally! You'r ok in my book.

The thing with that is, why would a god create something then say it's an abomination? Come on. I didn't choose to be gay. No one does. Do I believe that every word in the bible is god's? No, not really. I beleive that man likes to control man. Some of those sins are just stupid, seriously. Like wearing 2 fibers, for example. i don't comprehend stoning either for stupid stuff like cheating and lying and disobeying your parents. Come on. Is that REALLY god's will? Just because it says he said that, did he really? We have no way of knowing.

I can't comprehend how a loving god would create someone who's gay, then say that that's an abomination. Doesn't make sense. The fact is we did not choose it. That's a fact. Do we choose to have sex? yeah. do we choose to be attracted to the same sex? no. It's not hurting anyone, so I don't see why god would have a problem with it. It's not like humans will die out because of that 6-10% of the population who doesn't reproduce.

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]His views are based on what he believes is best for people and society. Whether that should be translated into legislature is his own choice as well as yours; every voice is heard equally at the polls.

Yes, and the first ammendment and courts exist to ensure that the majority cannot simply impose their will on the minority, trampling their rights.

Outsider does NOT have a right to take away the civil rights of those he disagrees with. Read the bill of rights. "Equal protection under the law" is guaranteed. Not "Equal protection for those who meet our moral standards."

The bill of rights exists to protect us from people like him.

Quote[/b] ]It has always been those on moral high ground that keep society from degrading into anarchy. That's one of history's simple secrets.

Yep, and here me and JLAP are, ensuring that your backwards dreams of theocracy don't plunge our society into a new Dark Ages.

Quote[/b] ]You can't argue that anything written in the Bible is bad for you. So whether you accept God love or no, his commandments still stand flawless.

Eat any seafood lately? Work any weekends? Wear clothing of 2 different types of fabrics? You have? Oh, well, sorry, you've failed to live by your god's rules, and are doomed to hell.

Seriously, read that book. The same book which condemns homosexuality condemns all of the things I listed above, and many, many more.

So, I guess I need to start living my life by God's rules. Know where I can buy some slaves? I know, they're hard to come by these days, but the Bible is *very* clear about the moral acceptability of human slavery, even going so far as to set prices and appropriate barters.

Do you have any idea how sad it is that an atheist knows more about your own faith than you do?

Next thing, you'll claim the King James Bible is infallible, in spite of the fact that there are passages *missing*. Not mis-translated, fused with other passages, *gone*, totally removed. Some infallibility, huh?

I'm bored by this, so let's play a new game:

My fiancee and I are both atheists, but have a very strong fondness for a particular religion whose overall symbolism speaks deeply to us. We're especially keen on one of the primary deities of this system, with my fiancee having gone so far as to pray to this deity in a time of need.

So, given that there is *NO* way to tell, which faith is the correct one, and *NO* evidence for any one god over another, why should you not be forced to live by OUR moral code?

Would it be right of a country in which this tradition of this faith predominated to prevent Christians from marrying?

Would it be right if the majority here were of a persuasion like ours to force you to worship the way we do?

If not, why is it right for you to do the same to others? Because you have the "right" God? That's the stuff holy wars are made of. Besides, our deity would win; more arms, for a start.

Mokele

 

[JB_OrchidGuy]

Ahhh All mighty Buddha!  I admit I don;t know much about Buddhism, but from what I have been expose to by my economics teacher, he has a great love for Tialand and teaches there every summer, it is a truely peacful and tolerent religion.

Now to the discusion at hand.  Christians are blind to the facts of their own religion.  Many hold blind faith to whatever the fanatical preacher tells them and runs with it.  My wife and I decided we were going to try to start going to church.  So we told her cousin and we joined them at church one sunday.  After listening to the preacher we never went back.  He was AWFUL.  He told us a story about how there was a fella in the congragation of a nother church he used to preach at that drove a budweiser truck for a living.  He ended up playing for the church softball team and drive the truck to practice one evening.  He then goes on about how they shunned him for driving a beer truck so much that he changed jobs.  The preacher went on about how he was doing a bad thing driving that beer truck and just talking down about his occupation.  Now after that day I had the question of why would they shun him for driving a beer truck when Jesus himself suposedly turned water into wine?  He never said alcohol was bad.  He just said over consumption was.  You know gluttony(sp).  So I spoke with a religious friend of mine at work and she even made the comment he was wrong.  Luckiy she is one of those religous folks that can see your point fo view and give doo explinations to why she disagrees with it, but she never attacks.  I love debating wiht her over things.

Many Christians also do not realize that many of the passages in their bible were changed by the Catholic preists many many decades ago.  I cannot remember the date.  They turned Mary Magdolin into a nice gal, and made the birth of Jesus that of imaculate conception.  The bible was written by MAN!  The Gospal of so and so.  These were books written by people as they saw their religion.  Also why is there only 4 gospels?  There were many other gospels left out.  A preist chose the 4 he wanted in the bible.  Since Christianity was shunned in its early existance each group of christians had their own gospel.  It wasn't till it was all consolidated that they put together the bible. Why is it that the gospel of judah was dismissed and even tried to be destroyed?  Did it say something the church did not want to get out?  The church is more underhanded than many people want to believe.  The people in the chatholic church(the high echilons like the cardinals and the pope) are the best at putting on a public show and then doing some underhanded things in secret.  This doesn;t mean that all catholics are bad, and believe me it is not isolated with just catholics either.  I believe it is with all religion period.  Religion is the oldest form of mind control.  Brainwashing at its finest. Much of this info comes from the National Geografic documentory "The gospel of Judah".  Some of it is from other things I have read.  

Now for my opinion on religion.  They were all cults in the begining.  There are many that have grown in popularity teken off.  This is all the major religions I am talking about here.  We stomp out all the fledgling cults into becoming a religion by demonising them as cults.  When in actuality they were cults to begin with.  Now does this mean because I say every religion was at one point a cult I think they are all bad?  Not at all.  From what I know about Buddhism and Hinduism they are both peiceful religions and get along with everyone.  This comes back to another story my Econ proffessor told us.  He said he was over there teaching ( he was showing slides the last day of his trips) and a school had just Irrected a statue of the Hindu god of technology.  Mind you the details are fuzzy, but the jist of it was the Statue was of a Hindu God at a school that was Buddhist, and both the Buddhist and Hindu preists collaborated on a time and both blessed the statue.  And according to his story it wasn't a big deal for either one of them.  Mokele are you or your fiance firmiliar with any wars either of these two religions were involved in over religious beliefs?

The thing is there is suposed to be a seperation of chuch and state.  Yet we are still getting reliously influenced legislation passing in office.  It is my believe that morality cannot be dictated, and not everyones morality is not the same.  The main problem is we have a country that tries to mind everyone elses business instead of minding their own.  What I do inside the privacy of my own home is my buisiness.  If I choose to have sex in a position other than the missionary position then I should be allowed to, but you know that is illegal to do in the state of GA?  Of course it is not enforced, but it is still on the books.  I do not feel the government should descriminate between Homo and heterosexuals.  They should be able to get married and share the same rights.  Face it there is rights gained by being "married" that single people do not get.  There are also some drawback depending on the person your with, but thats something different.  LOL  Companies do not have to pay death benefits to a partner or whatnot.  Some clubs chrge more for two singles than a married couple.  The descrimination is endless!!  I am not gay and yet I am not blind to that fact.  People put on blinders when things do not dirrectly affect them, and that is sad.

I am personaly TIRED of morality being dictated to me.  I cannot go smoke my good because someone says it is bad.  I can't grow a plant because it is moraly wrong.  Clint cannot love the person he wants to love because it is "moraly" wrong.  That is BS all around.  As long as what someone does, does not affect another human being dirrectly causeing bodily harm then screw what you think it shouldn't be mandated as bad.  I don't think poligomy is bad, and if I had a woman that would go along with it why would I turn it down?  Besides the fact that it is illegal.  A law like that was made by a guy who could barely hold on to one woman so why would he want another man to have two or three?  Stupid crap like that.

Many people just need to stop thinking they are the center of the universe and realize there are other ways to look at things, and there are more than one way to do something.

 

[herenorthere]

People are coming at this from different political orientations, but a common theme is a desire for a less intrusive government.  Pretty much everyone agrees government has to say, "no" to people sometimes, but we disagree as to when that is.

In my opinion, it would be right for government to tell a landowner he can't drain S. alabamensis habitat to raise cattle, but it's wrong for government to tell two gay men they can't marry.  I can't point at any abstract theory that says why one is good and the other isn't - I just think the first is a worthwhile trampling of someone's rights and the second isn't.  If someone's opposed to gay marriage, they should make sure they marry someone of the opposite sex and, at that point, should stop worrying about it.

As to how much government intrusion we should accept to prevent terrorism, I believe it should be very little.  We have no trouble accepting the loss of 40,000+ Americans to traffic accidents every year.  With no outcry for three strikes and you're out speeding tickets or zero tolerance alcohol laws.  Other nations have survived terrorism with much of their dignity intact.  Americans should be able to do the same.

And don't believe the hype about Eastern religions being tolerant and peaceful.  They certainly can be, just like Christians, Muslims and Jews can be, but the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka oppressed the Hindu & Muslim Tamil minority and Shinto Japanese committed a lot of atrocities in WW II.  Blood is shed whenever religion takes hold of government, no matter how tolerant they might appear.

 

[Clint]

Great post josh.

Bruce, You said it yourself. the Buddhist GOVERNMENT.

Lets see here. Look at what happens when the government isn't secular:

The Shinto government in WWII
The Muslim government in several countries RIGHT NOW!
The Buddhist government in sri lanka
The Christian government in england during the crusades
The Christian government in spain during the inquisition
The Christian government in america several hundred years ago. Look at the "witch" burnings.

Do we see a pattern here? all those religions are fine with me by themselves, but once they infest the government they go crazy.