Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, it sounds like you're perfectly fine with religion-backed laws in this country.
You owe Kim Davis an apology.
As long as they don't conflict with the Constitution I am fine with it.
And that is why nobody owe's Kim D anything. She knowingly and willingly broke the law. If anything, she was given way too many chances to discriminate before someone stood up and put an end to her disrespect of this great country and the values it was founded upon. People should apologize for that!
What social policies is the Pope using his 'moral authority" to enact?
You think you're smooth huh? I did not use "enact" in the context for which you are trying to corner me. Nice try. I am too smart for semantical contortionism.
So, it sounds like you're perfectly fine with religion being the moral authority for which laws are created? Is that a new plank in liberal ideology? That's pretty earth-shattering coming from the ideology that believes homosexuality should be normalized through American laws.
Your deep tribalism makes it difficult to have this discussion.
So we're agreed that you lost on the whole trying to compare a government worker breaking the law to a foreign visitor offering abstract opinions discussion . You're moving the goalposts and I like closure so just want to be clear that we all agree you were soundly defeated.
Now, as for your completely new topic, people are always motivated by their personal values, whether that is based on religious doctrine or personal beleif that we shouldn't harm the planet, but we also have a Constitution that makes sure laws don't violate the Constitutional rights of citizens.
Being expected to do one's voluntary job doesn't qualify. Denying people benefits others can receive for a different biological basis does.
Your email continued use of the phrase "normalize homosexuality" is most disturbing. They are normal. I'll keep you in my prayers.
Under what premise does the leader of a church have to speak to Congress....using "moral authority" as his guide no less....the entity for which laws are made in the secular United States of America?
Are you of the opinion that such positions taken by the Pope, which not-so-ironically are being co-opted by Democrats, should be elevated to be a part of the pubic debate? If so, when did liberals start to fuzzy the lines between church and state?
The premise that the leader was invited by the Speaker of the House to speak to Congress.
I believe that the positions taken by the Pope on a variety issues are already a part of the public debate. What new issues are you complaining about?
When the Pope pushes a "moral obligation" backed by religion, it makes hypocrites out of every living, breathing supportive Democrat and liberal in America:
1) Keep Kim Davis's religious views out of government!
2) Take the Pope's religious views on American social policy and incorporate them into government law and regulation!
Both of which affect American's, but only one of which liberals support!
The hypocrisy is downright disgusting!
Eh no. I'm a liberal and I don't want Kim Davis's views or the Pope's views dictating our laws.
What name calling? Show me even a single example. Unless of course you believe "liberal" is derogatory, in which case I will absolutely agree.
Under what premise does the leader of a church have to speak to Congress....using "moral authority" as his guide no less....the entity for which laws are made in the secular United States of America?
Are you of the opinion that such positions taken by the Pope, which not-so-ironically are being co-opted by Democrats, should be elevated to be a part of the pubic debate? If so, when did liberals start to fuzzy the lines between church and state?
Yes, why not? I'm not even a Christian. (Jew-ish) Of course his positions should be part of the public debate, just like Mike Huckabee's should, and even Kim Davis's should be PART OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE. But once that debate shows they are not constitutional, it's time to move on.
BTW, I don't think the Pope is engaged in Pubic Debate. There have been a few Priests that got busted, but I think that problem has mostly been addressed. No need to keep rehashing old problems.
You think you're smooth huh? I did not use "enact" in the context for which you are trying to corner me. Nice try. I am too smart for semantical contortionism.
You're twisting, Aero. That's never a good sign.
What religious-backed laws are you concerned about? Could you describe how these laws are "religious-backed"? Any religious texts?
What religious-backed laws are you concerned about? Could you describe how these laws are "religious-backed"? Any religious texts?
Hell, I can!
"though shall not steal". Totally supported by the ten commandments AND DOESN"T VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. Ever hear any liberals whining about that law? NOPE!
Your deep tribalism makes it difficult to have this discussion.
So we're agreed that you lost on the whole trying to compare a government worker breaking the law to a foreign visitor offering abstract opinions discussion . You're moving the goalposts and I like closure so just want to be clear that we all agree you were soundly defeated.
Now, as for your completely new topic, people are always motivated by their personal values, whether that is based on religious doctrine or personal beleif that we shouldn't harm the planet, but we also have a Constitution that makes sure laws don't violate the Constitutional rights of citizens.
Being expected to do one's voluntary job doesn't qualify. Denying people benefits others can receive for a different biological basis does.
Your email continued use of the phrase "normalize homosexuality" is most disturbing. They are normal. I'll keep you in my prayers.
Your post illustrates the issue precisely. When did liberals become so willing to fuzzy the lines between church and state?
I'll ask again: When the first piece of legislation pops up citing the Pope's message as the reason for the new legislation, will you cry foul? Yes or no. If not, then you're employing de facto willingness to allow religion to creep into law and regulation. Which is abject hypocrisy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
