Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 13, 2016, 08:26:10 AM
I listen to Catholic radio a lot (EWTN) and they are outraged at the HRC methodology reveal.
Religious freedom is being mangled by the leftists into two things. You can go to your church. You can pray at home. Your religion goes nowhere else.
I like the approach mentioned on another thread ... Just live your faith. They can't arrest us all.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 13, 2016, 08:30:32 AM
Well, the founders got it wrong apparently.Funny how (most) Catholics pull the "D" lever at election time.
I listen to Catholic radio a lot (EWTN) and they are outraged at the HRC methodology reveal.
Religious freedom is being mangled by the leftists into two things. You can go to your church. You can pray at home. Your religion goes nowhere else.
I like the approach mentioned on another thread ... Just live your faith. They can't arrest us all.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 13, 2016, 08:35:42 AM
Funny how (most) Catholics pull the "D" lever at election time.Yes, but that is changing. It would change more dramatically if the R's had a decent candidate.
As it is, the D's see Catholics as their allies and, with some minor tweaks about genital issues, as the thin end of the wedge of total control.
Post by: acrogimp on October 13, 2016, 08:48:18 AM
JK
Post by: Anthony on October 13, 2016, 08:58:28 AM
Funny how (most) Catholics pull the "D" lever at election time.
The Pope is an avowed Marxist. When he came to Philly, I did not get excited like many others did. I grew up Catholic, but I don't consider myself a Catholic any longer, plus they wouldn't want me anyway as I have been divorced, so excommunicated in their eyes.
I don't understand how Catholics can vote Democrat, as that is the ABORTION party.
Post by: nddons on October 13, 2016, 10:04:03 AM
Funny how (most) Catholics pull the "D" lever at election time.As a Catholic, this disturbs me to no end.
Post by: nddons on October 13, 2016, 10:27:26 AM
This Catholic has NEVER pulled the lever for anyone with a (D) after their name because the Liberal sacrament of abortion is anathema to the most basic Christian/Catholic belief in the sanctity of life and I will never understand anyone who claims to be a Christian/Catholic who can vote for the party of abortion.I went to a Catholic high school in the Chicago area run by the Congregation of the Holy Cross - a pretty conservative order of priests, and the same priests at the University of Notre Dame.
JK
My daughter went to the College of the Holy Cross, which is run by the Jesuits. When I told one of my high school priests that she decided to go to Holy Cross, he said "OK, just be sure she doesn't convert."
He said that only half-way jokingly because the Jesuits are known as the pony tail, sandal wearing hippie order of priests, who by the way do great work in inner cities, and whose colleges are almost all in urban areas, such as Marquette University in downtown Milwaukee.
There is a stark difference in how the two orders of priests, and in turn a stark difference in how ordinary Catholics, view the world, and the role of government in it.
To put it in its simplest terms, I would say the Holy Cross fathers are of the "teach a man to fish" camp, where the Jesuits are of the "give another man the shirt off your back" camp. The Jesuits and like-minded Catholics think government can play a big role in helping our fellow man.
Unfortunately, and for which I have no explanation, this line of thinking appears to trump the inalienable Catholic belief in the right to life. You would think the right to life would unify Catholics over all other differences. Sadly, this isn't the case, as evidenced most recently by Tim Kane who somehow threaded the needle by being a "strong" Catholic who is also pro-abortion. I cannot square that circle.
Post by: Anthony on October 13, 2016, 10:34:15 AM
I went to a Catholic high school in the Chicago area run by the Congregation of the Holy Cross - a pretty conservative order of priests, and the same priests at the University of Notre Dame.
My daughter went to the College of the Holy Cross, which is run by the Jesuits. When I told one of my high school priests that she decided to go to Holy Cross, he said "OK, just be sure she doesn't convert."
He said that only half-way jokingly because the Jesuits are known as the pony tail, sandal wearing hippie order of priests, who by the way do great work in inner cities, and whose colleges are almost all in urban areas, such as Marquette University in downtown Milwaukee.
LOL! I went to public school until I went to Villanova University which is Augustinian. You know the monks with the robes and hoods? :) My Mom wanted me to go to St. Joseph's which is Jesuit. Well they didn't have a Lacrosse team, and I was a Lacrosse player, plus Villanova seemed to be a better school to me. Anyway, you are correct, all these orders have different philosophies. My Dad went to LaSalle which is run by the Christian Brothers. In his time, they were real SOB's and if you misbehaved, they'd take you out back and beat the crap out of you. The Augustinians were BIG drinkers.
Post by: PaulS on October 13, 2016, 10:56:38 AM
Funny how (most) Catholics pull the "D" lever at election time.
There is absolutely nothing funny about it, but I get your point.
Post by: PaulS on October 13, 2016, 10:58:13 AM
The Pope is an avowed Marxist. When he came to Philly, I did not get excited like many others did. I grew up Catholic, but I don't consider myself a Catholic any longer, plus they wouldn't want me anyway as I have been divorced, so excommunicated in their eyes.
I don't understand how Catholics can vote Democrat, as that is the ABORTION party.
So your divorced statement is wrong Anthony. I agree with the rest.
Post by: Anthony on October 13, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
So your divorced statement is wrong Anthony. I agree with the rest.
How so? I just can't take communion?
Post by: nddons on October 13, 2016, 11:28:35 AM
The Augustinians were BIG drinkers."Whenever 4 or more are gathered in His name, there's always a 'fifth'."
I think it's in the Catechism. When I was young my dad was deadly involved with the Redemptorist order of priests. They are largely missionary priests. We lived near one of their retreat houses, and at every holiday we usually had priests over to our house from around the world. Man, I learned to be a bartender at age 7 I think. Those guys could drink.
Post by: PaulS on October 13, 2016, 01:24:33 PM
How so? I just can't take communion?
That's correct, no communion and actually I believe there are circumstances you can get communion. You are not ex communicated for divorce. Annulments are pretty easy to get now days if you feel inclined to try.
Post by: bflynn on October 13, 2016, 01:30:52 PM
That's correct, no communion and actually I believe there are circumstances you can get communion. You are not ex communicated for divorce. Annulments are pretty easy to get now days if you feel inclined to try.
Technically, it is not divorce but remarriage that triggers the exclusion from Communion. You can get a civil divorce but that does not change the vow before God. You merely live apart from your spouse and don't remarry then you're still eligible.
Not sure I understand that. It would seem to me that someone who is that seriously out of touch with God should be required to receive Communion, not prohibited. But the standards of the faith must be preserved.
Post by: Lucifer on October 13, 2016, 01:33:51 PM
Post by: Rush on October 13, 2016, 01:46:00 PM
I don't understand how Catholics can vote Democrat, as that is the ABORTION party.
I don't have statistics but I think a lot of them come from families and communities that were traditionally Democrat because they worked in steel mills and other industries and supported Labor.
Post by: Anthony on October 13, 2016, 01:47:22 PM
I don't have statistics but I think a lot of them come from families and communities that were traditionally Democrat because they worked in steel mills and other industries and supported Labor.
That's probably as good an explanation as any.
Post by: Lucifer on October 13, 2016, 01:49:26 PM
I don't have statistics but I think a lot of them come from families and communities that were traditionally Democrat because they worked in steel mills and other industries and supported Labor.
The democrat party of the previous generations has very little resemblance to the democrat party of today.
Post by: Anthony on October 13, 2016, 02:13:22 PM
The democrat party of the previous generations has very little resemblance to the democrat party of today.
Yes, but old habits die hard. A lot of these people grew up in union households. The jobs, and union may be long gone, but the tradition remains. They don't realize that the Democrats are now the party of big business, especially in tech, media, banking, finance, etc.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 13, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
Because beliefs can create a faux reality for individuals, I try very hard not to hate something that doesn't deserve my hate.
But leftists, you are wearing me down.
Post by: nddons on October 13, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Yes, but old habits die hard. A lot of these people grew up in union households. The jobs, and union may be long gone, but the tradition remains. They don't realize that the Democrats are now the party of big business, especially in tech, media, banking, finance, etc.It is ironic, isn't it? Who's fighting for coal, oil, and manufacturing jobs? Republicans; democrats are against all of those, either for policy reasons ("green energy" bullshit) or regulatory (a/k/a control freaks) reasons.
Hell, when Richard Trumka supports low-cost illegal immigrant labor, you realize this has nothing to do with workers, and EVERYTHING to do with power and control.
Leave it to Republicans to be so utterly inept that they can't explain that simple concept to the masses.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 13, 2016, 02:29:59 PM
Democrats have a little problem with hating the rich. Some of those I know say they were taught as children to hate the rich. That fits with the leftist strategy of exploiting hatred of the rich.And then they lower the threshold of who is "rich"
Because beliefs can create a faux reality for individuals, I try very hard not to hate something that doesn't deserve my hate.
But leftists, you are wearing me down.
Post by: bflynn on October 13, 2016, 02:55:43 PM
Religious freedom is being mangled by the leftists into two things. You can go to your church. You can pray at home. Your religion goes nowhere else.
I'm surprised they stopped there. They obviously want to completely suppress religion, why not just outright prohibit it?
And I'm wondering how many people that donated to the Clinton Foundation received some kind of benefit from the government...
Post by: wingover on October 13, 2016, 03:30:09 PM
Religious freedom is being mangled by the leftists into two things. You can go to your church. You can pray at home. Your religion goes nowhere else.
That's BS. Preventing religion from creeping into places it doesn't belong is not an infringement of your religious freedom. "Religious freedom" doesn't include the opportunity to wedge it into other people's lives via government.
Post by: bflynn on October 13, 2016, 06:55:49 PM
places it doesn't belong is not an infringement of your religious freedom. "Religious freedom" doesn't include the opportunity to wedge it into other people's lives via government.
That's fine. But it's beyond that. Hillary's plan is that it doesn't belong in public period.
Post by: Kristin on October 14, 2016, 01:17:22 AM
That's fine. But it's beyond that. Hillary's plan is that it doesn't belong in public period.
And you base that some something one or her flunkies said? How exactly did you tease that out of the Wikileaks or did it come from something else.
Post by: bflynn on October 14, 2016, 02:57:06 AM
And you base that some something one or her flunkies said? How exactly did you tease that out of the Wikileaks or did it come from something else.
No. this did not come from Wikileaks.
I am sure you know not to ask questions you don't already know the answer to.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 14, 2016, 05:36:54 PM
That's BS. Preventing religion from creeping into places it doesn't belong is not an infringement of your religious freedom. "Religious freedom" doesn't include the opportunity to wedge it into other people's lives via government.Personal ideologies should not be wedged into government, whatever their source.
Unfortunately this administration keeps wedging personal ideologies into government at a brisk clip.
The idea that religious freedom must be strangled is, as I am sure you can see, merely a route to power, as it has been throughout history.
Post by: Kristin on October 15, 2016, 09:37:22 PM
The idea that religious freedom must be strangled is, as I am sure you can see, merely a route to power, as it has been throughout history.
Only if it is replaced by a state religion. A state religion has been the route to prop up autocratic governments until the 20th Century in most of the world. In some places, it still is.
Post by: Number7 on October 16, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
That's BS. Preventing religion from creeping into places it doesn't belong is not an infringement of your religious freedom. "Religious freedom" doesn't include the opportunity to wedge it into other people's lives via government.
What is BS is claiming that your right to freedom from religious exposure trumps the rights of everyone else from practicing their religious convictions. It is no different than the little progressive snowflakes claiming that seeing the word TRUMP written ona whiteboard at a college campus is a hate crime. You folks simply insist that whatever your current popular idiocy is should be mandatory for everyone, or you are being discriminated against, the victim of micro aggression, scared, frightened, and / or the victim of sexism. It's all made up stupidity to make yourselves feel important at others' expense.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 17, 2016, 10:00:09 AM
Only if it is replaced by a state religion. A state religion has been the route to prop up autocratic governments until the 20th Century in most of the world. In some places, it still is.You don't have to have a state religion to use oppression of religious freedom to gain and retain power.
Post by: bflynn on October 17, 2016, 11:12:57 AM
What is BS is claiming that your right to freedom from religious exposure trumps the rights of everyone else from practicing their religious convictions. It is no different than the little progressive snowflakes claiming that seeing the word TRUMP written ona whiteboard at a college campus is a hate crime. You folks simply insist that whatever your current popular idiocy is should be mandatory for everyone, or you are being discriminated against, the victim of micro aggression, scared, frightened, and / or the victim of sexism. It's all made up stupidity to make yourselves feel important at others' expense.
Democrats are working themselves up to violence, convincing themselves that Republicans are so bad that the only recourse to fixing it is to eliminate all conservatives. They have been working on it for a long time.
Next thing you know they're going to start burning down Republican Party offices.
Post by: Number7 on October 17, 2016, 01:08:54 PM
And then they lower the threshold of who is "rich"
When Hilary's husband was president he declared that rich meant you made $36,000 a year.
Post by: bflynn on October 17, 2016, 04:59:27 PM
Satanism, we don't have such silly rules. ;)
Which is just one more lie. There are always rules.
Post by: PaulS on October 17, 2016, 06:19:27 PM
Democrats are working themselves up to violence, convincing themselves that Republicans are so bad that the only recourse to fixing it is to eliminate all conservatives. They have been working on it for a long time.
Next thing you know they're going to start burning down Republican Party offices.
And blaming it on the republicans.
Post by: Kristin on October 18, 2016, 07:39:43 PM
You don't have to have a state religion to use oppression of religious freedom to gain and retain power.
Bad people will readily do bad things. To get good people to do bad things you need religion.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 18, 2016, 07:53:26 PM
Bad people will readily do bad things. To get good people to do bad things you need religion.
I suppose you think that religion never leads to anything good.
Post by: bflynn on October 18, 2016, 08:05:03 PM
Bad people will readily do bad things. To get good people to do bad things you need religion.
We were talking about a very similar topic this afternoon. Setting Islam aside, in the history of the world I count very few bad thing that can be attributed solely to religion, namely the Inquisition. If you disagree with the Puritan policies then you might look at Oliver Cromwell. You could stretch and say that religion is a collection of personal beliefs and claim some of the progressive policies today which are carried out with religious fervor. Now I'm not an exhaustive student of history, but I don't see many and I'm stretching to get these.
The Crusades were defensive wars with the goal of freeing Jerusalem so that pilgrims could visit. Despite the Pope's endorsement, they were primarily political wars against the policies of the Muslims.
The Greeks, Romans and Norse never fought wars in their God's names. I know of no wars fought in the name of Buddha, any of the Indian gods and nothing in China or Japan
Rolling back - of course we have to set Islam aside because they seem to be the exception to the rule. I don't know if it's because they're a relatively young religion or if the religion is mixed with a barbaric culture from a harsh land, but history is full of evil things done in the name of Islam. Piracy. Slavery. Terrorism. Genocide.
Post by: Number7 on October 18, 2016, 08:17:43 PM
Post by: nddons on October 18, 2016, 09:24:20 PM
Bad people will readily do bad things. To get good people to do bad things you need religion.
Right from the playbook. Congratulations.
Post by: Kristin on October 18, 2016, 09:43:03 PM
I suppose you think that religion never leads to anything good.
Trust me! If I had meant that, I would have said that. You might notice that I am not shy. Religion can amplify both the better angels of our nature and the worst.
Post by: Kristin on October 18, 2016, 09:46:42 PM
We were talking about a very similar topic this afternoon. Setting Islam aside, in the history of the world I count very few bad thing that can be attributed solely to religion, namely the Inquisition. If you disagree with the Puritan policies then you might look at Oliver Cromwell. You could stretch and say that religion is a collection of personal beliefs and claim some of the progressive policies today which are carried out with religious fervor. Now I'm not an exhaustive student of history, but I don't see many and I'm stretching to get these.
The Crusades were defensive wars with the goal of freeing Jerusalem so that pilgrims could visit. Despite the Pope's endorsement, they were primarily political wars against the policies of the Muslims.
The Greeks, Romans and Norse never fought wars in their God's names. I know of no wars fought in the name of Buddha, any of the Indian gods and nothing in China or Japan
Rolling back - of course we have to set Islam aside because they seem to be the exception to the rule. I don't know if it's because they're a relatively young religion or if the religion is mixed with a barbaric culture from a harsh land, but history is full of evil things done in the name of Islam. Piracy. Slavery. Terrorism. Genocide.
There isn't much to disagree with here. I would add to Islam any number of cults, ala Jim Jones and Jonestown.
Monotheism seems to be more susceptible to being used to rally the troops to the fight, etc. I just it is just harder to do that when you have multiple gods.
Post by: Jim Logajan on October 18, 2016, 09:58:32 PM
We were talking about a very similar topic this afternoon. Setting Islam aside, in the history of the world I count very few bad thing that can be attributed solely to religion, namely the Inquisition. If you disagree with the Puritan policies then you might look at Oliver Cromwell. You could stretch and say that religion is a collection of personal beliefs and claim some of the progressive policies today which are carried out with religious fervor. Now I'm not an exhaustive student of history, but I don't see many and I'm stretching to get these.
The Crusades were defensive wars with the goal of freeing Jerusalem so that pilgrims could visit. Despite the Pope's endorsement, they were primarily political wars against the policies of the Muslims.
The Greeks, Romans and Norse never fought wars in their God's names. I know of no wars fought in the name of Buddha, any of the Indian gods and nothing in China or Japan
Since you are not an exhaustive student of history, and while neither am I, it happens that within the last two years I felt I needed a refresher of world history so I plowed through a few world history textbooks to learn and relearn/refresh since my last encounter in school 40+ years ago. I therefore have enough recollection of some of the nastier things of the past that, with the assistance of Google, I can provide some examples of religious wars that indict religions other than Islam; a recollection of the inhuman things that happened when religion and the force of authority (state) are co-mingled:
- Although the Romans didn't seem to fight wars to spread their religion or gods, beginning with Constantine I the Roman empire began to employ forced conversions to Christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion)).
- Prior to that, in 250, Roman emperor Decius "issued an edict, the text of which has been lost, requiring everyone in the Empire (except Jews, who were exempted) to perform a sacrifice to the gods in the presence of a Roman magistrate and obtain a signed and witnessed certificate, called a libellus, to this effect. The decree was part of Decius' drive to restore traditional Roman values and there is no evidence that Christians were specifically being targeted." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire#Decius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire#Decius)).
- The Protestant Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation)) lead directly and indirectly to a lot of fighting and millions of deaths.
- The Thirty Years' War, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War)) was one of the religious war spawned by the reformation, which caused an estimated 8 million deaths.
- The French Wars of Religion, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion)) was another religious war which cause an estimated 3 million deaths.
- The Albigensian Crusade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)) started as a military campaign by Pope Innocent III with a religious goal of eradicating a non-Catholic sect from the south of France.
- I'll also mention the Northern Crusades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades)) as a counterpoint to the idea that "crusades" were always directed toward Muslims or the freeing of Jeruslem.
- What little I know of Buddhism suggests to me that adherents would be least likely to wage war in their god's names - and I see someone has created an article in Wikipedia on Buddhism and violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence))
- It might be argued that since the Emperor of Japan was considered a living deity, all of Japan's wars up through WWII were religious wars (until the Humanity Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity_Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity_Declaration)))
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 19, 2016, 05:41:17 AM
Trust me! If I had meant that, I would have said that. You might notice that I am not shy. Religion can amplify both the better angels of our nature and the worst.
And yet you don't acknowledge the good that can come from religion until pressed...and even then you are dismissive of it.
People think I'm cynical but you make me look pollyanna-ish (if that's a word)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 19, 2016, 08:58:39 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 19, 2016, 09:23:31 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 19, 2016, 10:21:03 AM
Jim, religion is like a set of tools. You can pick them up and use them for good or misuse themfor evil. The latest leaks about the DNC's "Catholic Spring" strategy is a modern day example.
ftfy
Post by: asechrest on October 19, 2016, 11:05:51 AM
Post by: Kristin on October 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
And yet you don't acknowledge the good that can come from religion until pressed...and even then you are dismissive of it.
People think I'm cynical but you make me look pollyanna-ish (if that's a word)
So I was not politically correct enough? Maybe demands to salve feelings with politically correct speech is not only for liberal college campuses. Hmmm . . . .
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 20, 2016, 08:07:09 AM
I dabbled in Zen Buddhism. Seems nice, band is non-theistic, so easy to dabble in for an agnostic.Zen Buddhism has a band?
My problem with ZB is that nothing matters. I look around in the world and see that things matter.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 20, 2016, 08:12:40 AM
So I was not politically correct enough? Maybe demands to salve feelings with politically correct speech is not only for liberal college campuses. Hmmm . . . .Not PC enough? You know this board better than that. Not comprehensive enough in scope and perspective. No feelings involved.
Post by: asechrest on October 20, 2016, 08:23:08 AM
Zen Buddhism has a band?
My problem with ZB is that nothing matters. I look around in the world and see that things matter.
*And.
I don't get the impression with ZB that nothing matters. Currently working through The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau.
Post by: Number7 on October 20, 2016, 08:35:19 AM
So I was not politically correct enough? Maybe demands to salve feelings with politically correct speech is not only for liberal college campuses. Hmmm . . . .
That's a typical progressive turn about. Project the failings of your movement onto your enemy. So Hilary of you.
Post by: nddons on October 20, 2016, 08:36:39 AM
Zen Buddhism has a band?Ha! I was thinking the same thing. I think they played at Summerfest in Milwaukee a few years ago.
Post by: PaulS on October 20, 2016, 12:55:23 PM
Ha! I was thinking the same thing. I think they played at Summerfest in Milwaukee a few years ago.
Weren't they called the Butt hole surfers?
Post by: Kristin on October 21, 2016, 10:16:52 AM
Not PC enough? You know this board better than that. Not comprehensive enough in scope and perspective. No feelings involved.
Good spin! I will have to remember that. Non-PC equals incomplete in scope and perspective. Now how many Christian charities and good works should I have mentioned to be complete in scope and perspective. Is it enough to throw out some passing reference to Mother Theresa every time the inquisition is mentioned? Do more in depth discussions of religious failings like Heaven's Gate cult suicide require more than a mention of religious good works. Will I be graded by sentence equivalency, paragraph equivalency, or word for word. I want to get the balance right here.
Post by: PaulS on October 21, 2016, 12:02:26 PM
Good spin! I will have to remember that. Non-PC equals incomplete in scope and perspective. Now how many Christian charities and good works should I have mentioned to be complete in scope and perspective. Is it enough to throw out some passing reference to Mother Theresa every time the inquisition is mentioned? Do more in depth discussions of religious failings like Heaven's Gate cult suicide require more than a mention of religious good works. Will I be graded by sentence equivalency, paragraph equivalency, or word for word. I want to get the balance right here.
No, it would help if you knew what you were talking about and weren't such an intolerant bigot toward religion.
Post by: Kristin on October 22, 2016, 09:16:09 AM
No, it would help if you knew what you were talking about and weren't such an intolerant bigot toward religion.
There! There! No one is trying to take your god away. Go spend a little time in your safe space. You will feel better soon.
Post by: Anthony on October 22, 2016, 09:19:18 AM
Post by: Number7 on October 22, 2016, 09:21:36 AM
Post by: PaulS on October 22, 2016, 09:26:28 AM
There! There! No one is trying to take your god away. Go spend a little time in your safe space. You will feel better soon.
Oh, don't worry, enlighten people like you have been trying to take "my god away" for 2000 or more years, there are really no new tricks there, just people who think there are. I have no "safe place". You on the other hand are in your safe place every time you make bigoted statements feeling enlightened.
Post by: bflynn on October 23, 2016, 08:34:42 PM
There! There! No one is trying to take your god away. Go spend a little time in your safe space. You will feel better soon.
No, not take him away, just drive him into the closet.
Christianity has been practiced in the open and in secret for 2000 years. It is practiced in the US and outside the US. You cannot stop it, all you can do is cause pain and anguish if you try to stop people from being open with their religion.
Post by: Number7 on October 24, 2016, 09:09:03 AM
The lies are as transparent as they are stupid.
I swear liberalism must make you stupid, blind and weak minded....
or maybe weak minded people, who need to be told what they think, what they feel and what they are allowed to think are inevitably drawn to the far left where they find despots more than willing to be their daddy and mommy.
Post by: Kristin on October 24, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
Too funny! Too hypocritical!
Post by: Number7 on October 24, 2016, 07:41:56 PM
This is hysterical but predictable. I figured that if I didn't put in all the politically correct disclaimers to sooth the touchy, you would all go off like a bunch of Berkeley snowflakes running running around yelling "micro-aggression".
Too funny! Too hypocritical!
You post just like Mari...
All blowhard, no brains.
Post by: asechrest on October 24, 2016, 07:48:55 PM
You post just like Mari...
All blowhard, no brains.
You post just like FC. All bluster, same IP address.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 24, 2016, 08:22:00 PM
You post just like FC. All bluster, same IP address.How would you know that?
Post by: PaulS on October 24, 2016, 08:53:07 PM
Post by: bflynn on October 25, 2016, 02:26:29 AM
This is hysterical but predictable. I figured that if I didn't put in all the politically correct disclaimers to sooth the touchy, you would all go off like a bunch of Berkeley snowflakes running running around yelling "micro-aggression".
Too funny! Too hypocritical!
The victim stance doesn't become you.
Read this carefully. It has nothing to do with PC or not. You didn't necessarily even say everything that is being reacted to, outside (gasp) facts were brought in.
Post by: Kristin on October 27, 2016, 11:45:14 AM
The victim stance doesn't become you.
Read this carefully. It has nothing to do with PC or not. You didn't necessarily even say everything that is being reacted to, outside (gasp) facts were brought in.
Right! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who jump on liberals for being whiny snowflakes with all the political correctness BS, then get all whiny when I make a comment about the capacity of religion to do evil, without giving equal time to all the good things that religious folks do.
Post by: PaulS on October 27, 2016, 12:16:43 PM
Right! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who jump on liberals for being whiny snowflakes with all the political correctness BS, then get all whiny when I make a comment about the capacity of religion to do evil, without giving equal time to all the good things that religious folks do.
Um, people do evil, some under the guise of religion and some encouraged by professors of religion. I do believe the non religious have the religious beat out by a yuuuuge margin on evil deeds though.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 27, 2016, 01:03:14 PM
Right! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who jump on liberals for being whiny snowflakes with all the political correctness BS, then get all whiny when I make a comment about the capacity of religion to do evil, without giving equal time to all the good things that religious folks do.
You need to understand what the "hypocrisy" means.
Post by: Kristin on October 28, 2016, 11:46:57 AM
Um, people do evil, some under the guise of religion and some encouraged by professors of religion. I do believe the non religious have the religious beat out by a yuuuuge margin on evil deeds though.
You can "believe" whatever you want. The facts are what they are.
Post by: nddons on October 28, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
You can "believe" whatever you want. The facts are what they are.What "facts" are you selling?
Post by: PaulS on October 28, 2016, 03:25:53 PM
What "facts" are you selling?
100+ million killed by communism proves she has no clue what she is talking about.
Post by: Kristin on October 29, 2016, 10:56:12 AM
100+ million killed by communism proves she has no clue what she is talking about.
They weren't killed in the name of atheism and Russia was and still is a deeply religious country, which Stalin tapped into whenever he needed to get the peasantry mobilized for war, civil or otherwise. The Holocast happened in no small part to the history antipathy the European Christians had to the Jews fueled by the "Christ Killer" narrative. And of course all combatants in most of the modern wars have invoked God as being on their side. Then we have the overt religious wars which include Islam against everyone for 13 centuries, the Crusades, and four centuries worth of Catholic/Protestant driven wars. Thems is the facts.
Post by: bflynn on October 29, 2016, 11:43:07 AM
They weren't killed in the name of atheism and Russia was and still is a deeply religious country.
The Russian people are deeply religious. The Russian government is atheist. Nothing is done in the name of non-belief, but it can be done because of non-belief. Nobody who thinks they will be held accountable by God will kill even a single innocent person, let alone 100 million.
Post by: asechrest on October 29, 2016, 01:26:46 PM
The Russian people are deeply religious. The Russian government is atheist. Nothing is done in the name of non-belief, but it can be done because of non-belief. Nobody who thinks they will be held accountable by God will kill even a single innocent person, let alone 100 million.
I would argue there are many devout who believe they are accountable to God, and will even kill in his name. Alahu Akbar, right?
Post by: Kristin on October 29, 2016, 07:10:59 PM
Nobody who thinks they will be held accountable by God will kill even a single innocent person, let alone 100 million.
Apparently there are not many of that type of religious individual, or either they are convinced by their religious leaders that God sanctions their killing, etc. I am not sure that there are any religious individuals who really use religion to modify their human tendency to violence. Perhaps the Quakers, but that seems about it.
Post by: bflynn on October 29, 2016, 08:36:34 PM
Apparently there are not many of that type of religious individual, or either they are convinced by their religious leaders that God sanctions their killing, etc. I am not sure that there are any religious individuals who really use religion to modify their human tendency to violence. Perhaps the Quakers, but that seems about it.
I would agree there are fewer of them today. It used to be the rule, I think up to the 50s or so. Today I believe it is the exception.
If we go back to Milton - perhaps he was right? People need to be moral to be free because moral people regulate themselves. People who are not moral need excessive laws to regulate them. Seem applicable to what we see today. Unfortunate for the moral ones who are burdened by two sets of rules.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2016, 01:29:29 AM
If we go back to Milton - perhaps he was right? People need to be moral to be free because moral people regulate themselves. People who are not moral need excessive laws to regulate them. Seem applicable to what we see today. Unfortunate for the moral ones who are burdened by two sets of rules.
perhaps that explains why liberals think the Government must be the agent of change...
Post by: bflynn on October 30, 2016, 06:26:21 AM
perhaps that explains why liberals think the Government must be the agent of change...
If they wanted to the change to be for freedom then I could support that. But sadly they are moving everyone toward a place where the government compels the behavior that is acceptable to the ruling elites. It will be decades before there is real freedom again, if ever.
Post by: Anthony on October 30, 2016, 06:49:43 AM
If they wanted to the change to be for freedom then I could support that. But sadly they are moving everyone toward a place where the government compels the behavior that is acceptable to the ruling elites. It will be decades before there is real freedom again, if ever.
The only change that GOVERNMENT condones, and promotes is the growth, and power of government, and more restrictions on the populace.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 31, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
https://youtu.be/-PCsZ_x9Z6s