Separation of Church and State

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

72 posts / 0 new

From Daniel Dreisbach: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/november/misusing-history.html?share=9iiOSaVXTxMjHIO3NzG3DaO6fW8WI0w8

Excerpts:

First, Jefferson's metaphor emphasizes separation between church and state—unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion. Jefferson's Baptist correspondents, who agitated for disestablishment (the elimination of an official "state church") but not for separation, were apparently discomfited by the figurative phrase. They, like many Americans, feared that the erection of a wall would separate religious influences from public life and policy. Few evangelical dissenters challenged the widespread assumption of the age that a self-governing people must be a moral people and that morals can be nurtured only by the Christian religion. They believed religion was an indispensable support for civic virtue and political prosperity, and its separation from public life necessarily imperiled social order and stability.

Second, a wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil government and religion—unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. Replacing the First Amendment with a wall unavoidably restrains religion, especially in its ability to influence public life, thereby exceeding the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Third, having assumed the separation of church and state, the civil state (often acting through the judiciary) has then presumed to define what is "religion" and what are the appropriate realms, duties, and functions of the "church" in a civil society. This has given the civil state practical, de facto priority over the church, subjecting the latter to the jurisdiction of the former.

Those who criticize modern constructions of the wall are not necessarily supporting a religious establishment. Rather, these critics contend that the First Amendment requires that religion and religious perspectives must be allowed to compete in the public sphere, without government inhibition, on the same terms as their secular counterparts. By its very nature, however, a high wall does not permit this.

The use of Jefferson's metaphoric wall to exclude religion from public life is at war with our cultural traditions insofar as it shows a callous indifference toward religion. It also offends basic notions of freedom of religious exercise, expression, and association in a pluralistic society. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's "high and impregnable" wall has redefined First Amendment principles, transforming a bulwark of religious liberty into an instrument of intolerance and censorship.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Comments

Quote Coalage1:

From Daniel Dreisbach: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/november/misusing-history.html?share=9iiOSaVXTxMjHIO3NzG3DaO6fW8WI0w8

Excerpts:

First, Jefferson's metaphor emphasizes separation between church and state—unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion. Jefferson's Baptist correspondents, who agitated for disestablishment (the elimination of an official "state church") but not for separation, were apparently discomfited by the figurative phrase. They, like many Americans, feared that the erection of a wall would separate religious influences from public life and policy. Few evangelical dissenters challenged the widespread assumption of the age that a self-governing people must be a moral people and that morals can be nurtured only by the Christian religion. They believed religion was an indispensable support for civic virtue and political prosperity, and its separation from public life necessarily imperiled social order and stability.

Second, a wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil government and religion—unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. Replacing the First Amendment with a wall unavoidably restrains religion, especially in its ability to influence public life, thereby exceeding the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Third, having assumed the separation of church and state, the civil state (often acting through the judiciary) has then presumed to define what is "religion" and what are the appropriate realms, duties, and functions of the "church" in a civil society. This has given the civil state practical, de facto priority over the church, subjecting the latter to the jurisdiction of the former.

Those who criticize modern constructions of the wall are not necessarily supporting a religious establishment. Rather, these critics contend that the First Amendment requires that religion and religious perspectives must be allowed to compete in the public sphere, without government inhibition, on the same terms as their secular counterparts. By its very nature, however, a high wall does not permit this.

The use of Jefferson's metaphoric wall to exclude religion from public life is at war with our cultural traditions insofar as it shows a callous indifference toward religion. It also offends basic notions of freedom of religious exercise, expression, and association in a pluralistic society. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's "high and impregnable" wall has redefined First Amendment principles, transforming a bulwark of religious liberty into an instrument of intolerance and censorship.

it offends no such thing. jefferson's wall has allowed an enormous variety of religious viewpoints to proliferate. you would not and did not see that in europe where there were "established" churches.

as for excluding religion from public life perhaps you would like to take a whck at how that has occurred. we see the opposite in fact in attempts to prevent gay marriage based upon biblical law. we see the opposite in fact with decsions such as hobby lobby. as for inerference in religious association that is utter nonsense.

but perhaps religion in the public square should consist of debate as to the correctness of theology. of course that happens now with you being allowed your pick of what to believe.

it appears the thing that bothers you is that religionists are prevented from getting their myopic religious beliefs enshrined as law.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Lol..."myopic".

Tell us how you really feel.

As to the "correctness of theology", have at it. Go ahead and debate all you want. The First Amendment also allows you freedom of speech. Imagine that.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

In the U.S., L. Ron Hubbard is equal to Jesus by law. Any defense of religion should include all religions not just the dominant one. I think religion would be soundly rejected in the public sphere then. The state cannot prevent you from worshipping as you choose, just as it cannot put religion over another. The state does not belong in religion and religion does not belong in the state.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

But the state is involved in religion already. That boat has already left the dock.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Please explain that statement. The state not allowing the Ten Commandments on taxpayer funded property is not the state getting involved in religion, it is the state not choosing one over another. The state legalizing marriage equality is not repressing religious views, it is protecting all religious views.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm
Quote Coalage1:

Lol..."myopic".

Tell us how you really feel.

As to the "correctness of theology", have at it. Go ahead and debate all you want. The First Amendment also allows you freedom of speech. Imagine that.

but it is not me that fears theological debate. It is those who clamor for religion in the public square since they seek to use a sanitized phrase as a method of enshrining their theology which is obviously given by God into law.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You said you wanted to debate the correctness of theology...so go ahead.

The state of Kentucky put a county clerk in jail for refusing to sign a marriage license for gay couples even though she said it was against her religion. How about the person who did not want to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple?

So yes, the state has decided to involve themselves in religion.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

The state only prevented one religious idea from being thrust onto someone who does not agree with it. The state did not force it's own ideas on anyone. What you are calling the state involving itself is the state removing itself and not sanctioning bigotry by anyone.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion (supposedly). You say that the refusal to sign a marriage license, for example, is bigoted behavior...others would say it is only the free exercise of their religion. After all, there were other county clerks who would sign the license. But the state interjected itself anyway, even though the gay couples could still have found someone else to sign the license.

Or lets take the classic example. Should a Jewish baker in Skokie be forced to decorate a cake with the Nazi swastika? Should that baker be forced to decorate that cake through penalty of fine or jail time even though there may be other non-Jewish bakers in the area who would willingly decorate the cake?

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Look at the practical aspect. Why would you want to do business with someone who doesn't like you or offends you? Get your cake made at a gay friendly baker.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

This is my last post on this, you have no argument. Religion cannot be the justification of denial. Religion can be used to justify any stance or belief. Where would it end? I could start a religion today to justify anything and the state can't stop me from believing anything but it can stop me from forcing my beliefs on anyone else. I will not even get into the use of religion to justify racial inequality. Sexuality is not a choice, religion is. For the record, no business can use the religion of it's employees or owners to deny service to anyone. If the state allowed that it is choosing one religion over another.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

Sexuality is not a choice? Perhaps for some, but not for all. Where will it end anyway? Last week it was gay rights...yesterday it is transgender rights. What will be the new cause du jour tomorrow that everyone will have to cowtow to?

By the way, you didn't answer the question about the Jewish baker in Skokie. I'll assume you think that baker can be forced to decorate a cake with the Nazi swastika. I got it. No one can object to anything anymore on the grounds of religion or conscience.

What about objecting to serving in the military due to religious convictions?

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

As others in this discussions have pointed out, arguments to elevate any or all conflicting religious beliefs above the law, is illogical nonsense. And this inherent illogic continues to be true regardless of whether pointing it out triggers your personal fear of someday being recycled into the Earth's biosphere. Consider:

Tolerating intolerance is not freedom, it's demonstrable tyranny for all the victims of that intolerance, no matter what the motivation for that intolerance is, including religion.

Allowing religious beliefs to influence public services destroys freedom for everyone who does not share those beliefs. In fact it has and continues to be a motivation for horrific evils up to and including genocide. Specifically, if you allow a pregnant woman to die rather than perform a life saving medical procedure because of your religious beliefs, you have murdered that woman and all the children that woman would have brought into the world as well as their descendants. This is not some abstract theoretical point. Consider the case of St. Joseph's Hospital, Phoenix, where Sister Margaret McBride was excommunicated for saving a late term pregnant woman's life. Also, Savita Halappanavar, who died in agony of septic miscarriage after being forced to go for days without a therapeutic abortion despite her husband's pleas at University Hospital, Galway, Ireland. Or consider me, my kids and grandkids. An idiot Catholic Doctor tried to medicate my pregnant mom's appendicitis in 1944, Bon Secours Hospital, Baltimore, a year before I was conceived. Fortunately, an enlightened priest and friend of the family took the doctor down the hall and "educated" him. Such individual personal examples not good enough evidence for you? Look up the ongoing horrors of El Salvador's conservative Catholic inspired extreme anti-abortion laws.

In a free society, if you wish to live out your life isolated in some ghetto of your own beliefs, you are welcome to try and do that. But you don't have the right to demand others move in with you.

Besides, if it is still not ridiculously obvious to every man, woman and child in America, splashing illogical emotional issues like this around in our media is a key part of the oligarchs' strategy to distract voters while they continue to pick our pockets.

ronsears
Joined:
Jun. 22, 2015 10:39 am

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

ronsears
Joined:
Jun. 22, 2015 10:39 am

As in the cases I pointed out, I dont think anyone demanded anything other than " you go somewhere else" and get whatever service or good you desired.

While you may think it illogical, apparently many others do not. Again, what is the difference between not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or being a conscientious objector to the military? In both cases, an individual is opting to not perform some action based on their personal beliefs.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

We don't serve your kind here, go somewhere else. Don't you think there are places in this country where if that sentiment were allowed, there would be nowhere to go? An objector to military service because of religion is equal to the clerk in KY quitting her job because of her religion. She cannot be compelled to work in a setting if she does not want to, but in her dealing with the public, her religion does not give her the right to deny service to anyone. I suppose it was naive of me to think there would never be a troll here just because it is a progressive platform.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

It is not the same. While the clerk can indeed quit her job if she doesn't want to perform a particular function, what happens to the conscientous objector? He just goes back to his daily routine?

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

An objector can have moral reasons as well as religious reasons for not wanting to serve. I do not know what threshold must be met to achieve objector status, but it only applies during a draft so your point is moot.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

Coalage1

The difference is attempting to force anyone else to live by your private beliefs, especially when those beliefs cause damage to other private individuals or our society as a whole. For example, the conscientious objectors you mention often go onto the battle field as medics, providing a service at least as valuable as firing a gun.

You can not logically have it both ways. Religious freedom means you get to privately believe and do what you want, and others are required by our laws to leave you in peace. But it is a logical necessity that you equally grant everyone else the same privilege. That includes actually providing the services you publicly promise on the sign you hang out for everyone to view in front of your business, including the very large number of individuals who do not share your private beliefs. In fact, even asking them what their private beliefs are, is a violation of their freedoms, making even the practice of such discrimination rather impractical in most cases. By the way, you keep talking about gay wedding cakes when there are many other very serious events at stake, like Pharmacists refusing to dispense time-critical Day-After pills. Is there anyone left who is still fooled by such feigned innocence?

Your right to private religious freedom also logically means others have the right to NOT CARE about your beliefs, as long as they do not prevent you from going about your private business. And this part of religious freedom is also reciprocal. Everyone else has the right to expect you to, in public practice, from all outside appearances, not care about their beliefs, again as long as their beliefs do not prevent you from going about your PRIVATE business.

Have you noticed yet that everything in our country's historic social contract to end religious wars works fine as long as you keep your religion private? Everything works fine until you start proselytizing / bearing witness / marketing / pushing your beliefs on others.

History has shown us over and over again that an absolutist religious focus on "life after death" can easily evolve into horrific abuses against the living. Within the historical context of the religious persecutions of the time, our founding fathers intended to free their new nation from such destruction by completely separating private religious beliefs from our public commerce, laws, and government.

Why do conversations like this seem to pop up over and over again? What's motivating this endless concern about the private religious beliefs or lack thereof of others? Most religious belief systems promise some sort of life after death, but only if you are among the chosen few adhering to that particular system of religious beliefs. Most of us would prefer to not cease to exist, so such religious beliefs hold a pretty powerful lock on the minds of those who adopt them. And that brings me to two questions.

One, if you truly believe, why do you feel compelled to get those around you to prop up your beliefs by adopting the same viewpoint?

Second, can you appreciate that there are some people who even though they share your preference to not cease to exist, are content to look at their families and all the things they have had a chance to do and create, or even just the sky on a clear night, and do not find it necessary to hold religious beliefs similar to yours?

ronsears
Joined:
Jun. 22, 2015 10:39 am

One of the main causes of conflict in society is the Progressive's blindness to their own religious beliefs that they are forcing on others. They think religion only refers to the beliefs in the supernatural or organized churches. But most of their social agenda is the Humanist agenda. And Humanism, being a system of beliefs, is a religion.

Imagine suing a bookstore because they don't sell the Bible. Sounds silly, right?

Now imagine suing a pharmacy that doesn't sell Plan B abortion pills. That actually happened.

Aren't both of those the same thing: forcing your religion on someone else?

Any law that deals with social issues that's not made at a local level is bound to be some form of forcing a religion on someone.

Think about it: most of what you believe, you believe because someone else tried something and wrote their experience of it, and then you learned about it. That applies to what Progressives see as "religion", right? Someone claims they experienced something a long time ago, and wrote about it, and encourages others to seek the same experience.

But doesn't that also apply to science? You believe things because someone else did the research and told you about it. They say you can experience the same thing if you do what they did. But do you actually do it? Or do you have faith in their findings?

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am

the findings of science effect everyone. Science explains the device you are using to communicate here and read what is written. It explains what you drive, wear, eat, see, and do. It has affected your health and the health of everyone you know that was born in a hospital. Not all of these are positive, but religion has nothing to do with any of it. Whatever religion you choose to follow is thought to be false by a majority of the world

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

Technically, you're talking about technology, which is applied science. Despite what many Progressives I encounter seem to believe, one can believe in both science and more traditional religions.

What about the science that doesn't lead to technology? Evolution, for example. It will always be a theory, because you can't go back in time to prove it. But most people accept the findings of scientists on the matter. That's faith. They haven't done the research themselves. They just believe what other people claim to have discovered.

That being said, couldn't one argue that teaching evolution in a public school is no different than teaching any other creation story? Both are based on some level of faith in the story tellers.

But, beyond that, what difference does it make if local public schools wish to teach a different form of the origins of humanity? I always hear Progressives mock schools that teach "creationism". But what difference does it make what they teach?

but religion has nothing to do with any of it.

You're stuck in the "religion means belief in the supernatural" mindset. ANY set of dogmatic beliefs is a religion.

For example, suppose you believe that the government should provide some sort of help for citizens that can't help themselves. The government does try to do that. And it forces taxpayers to subsidize that belief. But it is still just a belief. Specifically, it's a Humanist belief.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am

The Amish believe that families should take care of their own elderly members. Therefore, they are against Social Security and other similar programs. Forcing them to pay into those programs is forcing a religious view onto them.

Fortunately for them, they are exempt from paying. Anyone can request expemption from paying social security based on personal religious beliefs. (Section 310 of the Social Security Act covers this.)

But the fact that you're forced to pay into it in the first place is the government forcing its belief system - it's RELIGION - that society must take care of the elderly - on the citizens.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am
Quote Coalage1:

You said you wanted to debate the correctness of theology...so go ahead.

The state of Kentucky put a county clerk in jail for refusing to sign a marriage license for gay couples even though she said it was against her religion. How about the person who did not want to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple?

So yes, the state has decided to involve themselves in religion.

nope, it did not. it did not say that the clerk or the baker could not hold their views and beliefs. it did say that if you are going to engage in a commercial activity then you cannot discriminate. it did say that if you are holding a job within the state government then you must do your job.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ChicagoMatt:

The Amish believe that families should take care of their own elderly members. Therefore, they are against Social Security and other similar programs. Forcing them to pay into those programs is forcing a religious view onto them.

Fortunately for them, they are exempt from paying. Anyone can request expemption from paying social security based on personal religious beliefs. (Section 310 of the Social Security Act covers this.)

But the fact that you're forced to pay into it in the first place is the government forcing its belief system - it's RELIGION - that society must take care of the elderly - on the citizens.

false. it is not religion. the state under the constitution and the general welfare clause can and does pass laws as related to the general welfare. poverty as a cuse of death for seniors dropped when soc sec was created. furthermore the amish by not participating in social security also do not receive the benefits. this is nowhere near the same thing as engaging in a commercial activity or working for the state. false equivalency.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

To this day, religious groups of many stripes continue to militate for legislatures at all levels to enact religiously based legislation, thus creating theocracy. It's that simple. If they'd stop doing that, there would be no controversy. But it all comes down to nobody being willing to live according to somebody else's religious precepts, and nor should they have to. KEEP RELIGION OUT OF LEGISTLATIVE CHAMBERS; IT HAS NO BUSINESS THERE IN ANY RELIGIOUSLY PLURASTIC SOCIETY!

This is NOT rocket science.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You don't get it (or maybe none of us really get it). In the Kentucky county clerk case, a gay couple wanting a marriage license just had to find another clerk or official to sign it for them. It was not as if this was the only county clerk in the whole state of Kentucky.

And businesses discriminate daily. As I pointed out in another thread, a lot of grocery stores (for example) do not sell every brand of a legal product, For whatever reason, they choose to only stock certain brands made by certain companies. Is it fair that I must go to different stores on ocassion to find a particular brand? Oh, the humanity involved to my personal well being that I must travel to another place of business at times to get the products I want and deserve.

Did the gay couples in Kentucky, or the gay couples wanting a cake, really suffer? I would say they did not as their grievance was settled in their favor. They may have gotten their feelings hurt but that is just the way life is sometimes.

If this country ever institutes the draft again, I do not want to see anyone of you supporting conscientious objectors. You can't have it both ways.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

And, I would also say that it is the "other side" that keeps trying to legislate religious issues. How did we get gay marriage? Or the transgender related issues in NC? What side advanced those issues?

I will remind everyone that Obama and Hillary were soldily against gay marriage until it became politically expedient for them to change their stances. I believe that Hillary still says she is a member of the Methodist Church which I think has still refused to recognize or authorize gay marriage.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

You are wrong again. I do get it and I have explained it more than once in this thread, the first I have ever joined. What if every person in that office believed as the KY clerk did? We are in a majority Christian nation. The state is finally protecting people from religious views one step at a time. You have not made a single coherent legal argument, you have only wondered why others cannot be forced to see the world as you see it. As to the Amish question, the Amish would not exist if not for a state that did not choose one religion over another. All Protestant factions owe their existence to a state that does not involve itself in religion.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm
false. it is not religion.

It's a belief system. And that's all a religion is. They are equivalent.

the state under the constitution and the general welfare clause can and does pass laws as related to the general welfare.

Based upon the belief system that says that welfare is important. Just because there is no supernatural aspect to it doesn't mean it's not a religion. Suppose another religion has a belief system that says people who can't support themselves shouldn't be supported by others. The State, via the welfare clause, is forcing it's belief system on them.

furthermore the amish by not participating in social security also do not receive the benefits

Correct. I believe everyone should be able to opt-out. I don't believe that people should be forced to help others if they don't want to. But the State forces their belief system on me with every paycheck.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am

Can't you understand it is not religion that is being legislated but freedom from it? Why am I still responding? This is ridiculous.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm
To this day, religious groups of many stripes continue to militate for legislatures at all levels to enact religiously based legislation, thus creating theocracy.

Especially Progressives and their Humanist beliefs system/religion.

To a Progressive, there is no room for descent when it comes to their beliefs, especially about homosexuality acceptance, abortion rights, government-induced "equality", etc....

Just like in Iran, where there is no room for descent from their theorcracy as well.

There's another active thread this week, celebrating the fact that a Christian pharmacy has to sell drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, even though that's against the pharmacy owner's belief system. The Progressives who cheer that ruling don't see that they are just like the Taliban, cheering when a "nonbeliever" is forced to do something against their will.

Don't Progressives call for boycotts of any business whose owners don't bow down to Progressive views, like Duck Dynasty, Hobby Lobby, or Chik-fil-et? It's not enough that they force their beliefs on others via legislation. They will not stop until everyone shares their belief system. They are the most active theocrats in America today.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am

Religion requires faith which by definition is belief in something that cannot be proven. Our government, flawed as it is, is elected by it's constituents. Everyone believes welfare is important, you seem to only believe in it for yourself and not others. The state's "belief system" you bemoan pays for things a society needs.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

It's dissent not descent. These examples you cite are the state not endorsing any religion over another. Why are you here?

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm
Can't you understand it is not religion that is being legislated but freedom from it? Why am I still responding? This is ridiculous.

Freedom from one religion by imposing another. You just can't see the "other" is also just a belief system, because you happen to like that belief system.

Any law that deals with social issues is a form of theocracy, because it's based on a belief system. That belief system may not include the supernatural, but it's still a belief system. It's still a form of religion.

Which is why there is so much division when the Federal government gets involved in social issues. Because the country is so large and diverse in their belief systems, that issues like that are best left to be dealt with at the local level. The current polarization in this country is, in large part, due to Federal meddling in local social issues.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am
Religion requires faith which by definition is belief in something that cannot be proven.

Pretty much everything you believe that you didn't personally experience requires some level of faith that other people are telling the truth about what they experienced.

I can say I prayed for something, and a miracle happened, but you won't believe it, because you didn't experience it yourself. You don't have faith in my story.

But if I said I did some research, and discovered a new comet, you might believe that. Even though you didn't experience that either. You would just have more faith in that story.

Everyone believes welfare is important

No, they don't. Especially not government-mandated welfare. If by "welfare" you just mean "taking care of each other", then yes, most people would believe that. But like we've already established, groups that take care of themselves, like the Amish, can opt out of government-mandated welfare.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am

The very medium we are using to communicate is science. I don't know how it works but the proof that it does is in front of both of us and it always has been there. When a doctor prescribed a medication the result is usually a recovery from an illness. When a plane takes off it is because of some equation involving thrust and mass. I don't understand any of it but there is evidence everywhere. I am done with this, there is no arguing with a libertarian because there is no validity to libertarianism.

ljp10500's picture
ljp10500
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2015 3:53 pm

You don't want to argue because it is a no win scenario. In a way, everyone who posted is right.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

You don't want to argue because it is a no win scenario. In a way, everyone who posted is right.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am
I don't know how it works but the proof that it does is in front of both of us and it always has been there.

That's the basis for pretty much every religion throughout history, right? You can't understand it, but it works, so just believe it. Because other people claim they understand it.

I don't understand any of it but there is evidence everywhere.

There's evidence for God everywhere too, if you have an open mind.

I just wish Progressives would see how close minded they sound to anyone who doesn't share their views. And how much their belief system is just like a religion. Thom is evangelizing his world view, and trying to get enough people to agree with him that it will be legislated on the masses.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am
Quote Coalage1:

You don't get it (or maybe none of us really get it). In the Kentucky county clerk case, a gay couple wanting a marriage license just had to find another clerk or official to sign it for them. It was not as if this was the only county clerk in the whole state of Kentucky.

And businesses discriminate daily. As I pointed out in another thread, a lot of grocery stores (for example) do not sell every brand of a legal product, For whatever reason, they choose to only stock certain brands made by certain companies. Is it fair that I must go to different stores on ocassion to find a particular brand? Oh, the humanity involved to my personal well being that I must travel to another place of business at times to get the products I want and deserve.

Did the gay couples in Kentucky, or the gay couples wanting a cake, really suffer? I would say they did not as their grievance was settled in their favor. They may have gotten their feelings hurt but that is just the way life is sometimes.

If this country ever institutes the draft again, I do not want to see anyone of you supporting conscientious objectors. You can't have it both ways.

no, you don't get it. the state must serve everyone. would you react in the same manner if her so-called religious beliefs procluded inter-racial marriage? what about a couple that was inter-faith? or was the "wrong" faith? it was none of that hack's business. her only business was to issue the certifcate as required by law and by the requirements of her job.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

re: the idiocy of the bookstore example. a bookstore can sell whatever merchandise it wishes. a pharmacy dispenses drugs prescribed by a physician or health care provider. the pharmacy has no right to stand betweeen the patient and the healthcare provider. the cases are unrelated.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There's obviously people posting here that don't believe in the separation of church and state.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

I believe more in free will and freedom of choice. If there are going to be exceptions (and there are), for whatever reason, then they should apply across the board. There should be consistency in the law. You want to make drugs a different commodity subject to different rules. Why? For health reasons? I need food to survive as much as I need drugs. What the hell is the difference?

I don't see it.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Because YOU get to make that choice for yourself, not for some one else.

And the public square is where each makes their individual choices in partaking so the public square needs to remain open to all. But admit it coalage you are not on about corn flakes or rice chex.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

I will never understand the reasoning that its okay for some legal commodities to not be readily available, but its a crime if certain other commodities aren't carried by every single store in the entire US.

I guess the store owner doesn't get to make his own choice for any reason whatsoever. I thought this was a free country. If I chose to open a drug store tomorrow, and I only chose to sell Lipitor and Xanax, should I not have the freedom to do that?

This discussion probably needs to be in the other thread.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Don't matter to me coalage because it seems to me you're arguing about the same issue and it doesn't matter if it's at the town hall over a marriage license or the drug store for some birth control. It's the same point.

And for the record neither place is the 'free market' and least of all the drug store.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

A prescription isn't a mandate for someone to tell you something. It's permission to buy it from someone who does sell it.

Based on Progressive logic, if I have a FOID card (government permission to purchase a firearm), I should be able to sue the local gun store if they don't carry the firearm I want.

What if a women's health clinic has a pharmacy attached to it. Should I be able to go into that pharmacy, and then sue them if they don't carry the medicine I need, because that medicine is only for men?

Same thing for a pediatric hospital with a pharmacy attached. Can I walk in there with a prescription for something that only happens to older people, and then sue them for not carrying that drug? Does that hospital need to stock "Plan B", if they cater only to pre-pubescent individuals?

Some insurance also covers psychological treatment. Suppose a doctor wrote a prescription for gay conversion therapy. Could a psychiatrist refuse to do that for a patient, even though that patient's doctor gave permission to get it?

This has nothing to do with health. It's about Progressive insistance that everyone agrees with them or shuts up.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am

Here's an interesting article about how homosexuality is probably genetic:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-gen...

And, if it IS genetic, that means it can be tested for before birth. Would a homosexual doctor be forced to perform an abortion, if the mother made it known that she wanted to abort the baby because it was gay?

In a Progressive world, yes, that doctor would be forced to perform that abortion, or close their business.

Or, what if there's a woman who has multiple sexual partners of different races, and gets pregnant. Can she then go to the doctor and request a genetic test to determine the race of the baby? And, if it's not the race she wants, have that baby aborted? Could a doctor refuse to perform the genetic test or abortion, based on moral or religious grounds?

In a Progressive world, no, that doctor would have to do whatever that woman wanted.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am
Quote Coalage1:

You don't get it (or maybe none of us really get it). In the Kentucky county clerk case, a gay couple wanting a marriage license just had to find another clerk or official to sign it for them. It was not as if this was the only county clerk in the whole state of Kentucky.

And businesses discriminate daily. As I pointed out in another thread, a lot of grocery stores (for example) do not sell every brand of a legal product, For whatever reason, they choose to only stock certain brands made by certain companies. Is it fair that I must go to different stores on ocassion to find a particular brand? Oh, the humanity involved to my personal well being that I must travel to another place of business at times to get the products I want and deserve.

Did the gay couples in Kentucky, or the gay couples wanting a cake, really suffer? I would say they did not as their grievance was settled in their favor. They may have gotten their feelings hurt but that is just the way life is sometimes.

If this country ever institutes the draft again, I do not want to see anyone of you supporting conscientious objectors. You can't have it both ways.

The position of county clerk is a public job, funded with tax dollars, so the clerk has no business or justification to make personal, religion based decisions which do not reflect or serve the interests or purposes of ALL the taxpayers who pay the clerk's salary, not just those religious interests the clerk agrees with. Public officials do not get to dictate their own ideas of morality de facto, through their actions as public officials.

Stores stock or don't stock items based on business decisions, namely how profitable their buyers think items are or have the potential to be.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Behold The Trump's Crime Family's Disrespect of Life & Humanity....

Thom plus logo In a time when wildlife populations around the world are crashing, endangered species tremble on the verge of extinction, and the entire web of life is at risk, the son of the President of the United States went to Mongolia and shot an endangered species, the largest sheep in the world with 6 foot horns.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system