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.
You miss the point. The abortion ban example is merely that, an example. The point is that you are saying that the President of the United States of America can and should put forth bills that appeal directly to his religious beliefs.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm 99.9999% positive that virtually 100% of your liberal colleagues would wholeheartedly disagree with you.
You just got caught in another lie.
What I quoted you as saying is that I thought they should be UP FOR DEBATE. If it's clear that they are not constitutionally sound, then why put forth the bill (other than to waste taxpayer money debating a dead issue, which is a favorite pass-time of the GOP)?
And I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of my liberal colleagues not only support the right to debate all points of view, but because they are not AFRAID of opposing points of view, they welcome it. That is the whole problem with your ilk. You're so terrified of anything outside your own narrow world that you're absolutely terrified to even discuss it.
I give you:
Gun controls
Immigration
Health Care
Abortion Rights
and on and on and on.
If you had an open mind, you wouldn't be putting up these crazy arguments, changing the rules and lying so often. Grow up and get some big-boy pants. If you have a position, defend it on the up and up, and if you are proven wrong, then learn something, and grow as a human being. REALLY MAN!
1) She did not, never has, and probably never will "represent the US government." She's a county-level clerk. The USG had no bearing whatsoever on state-level marriage licenses.
2) No one, especially me, asserted that the Pope "creates laws." Your strawman is dead on arrival.
If this is your very best, then you should be very, very embarrassed.
Actually, it's you who should be embarrassed. For real.
What exactly did the pope say that you find so objectionable? Is it about caring for the poor? Is that so offensive to you? Yet not carrying out a persons job is considered admirable to you? Your ethics are totally backwards.
I don't do talking points nor do I care for message discipline. I do my own thinking and express my own opinions. That being said, as far as I am concerned Kim Davis can stand in, on, or in front of her county clerk's office and preach fire and brimstone about same sex marriage until the bloody rapture for all I care. As long as when someone comes for a proper marriage licenses they get one.
And, if a Christian pastor stands before Congress and preaches "fire and brimstone" about XYZ social policy and Congress acts on that fire and brimstone as a result, you will be perfectly fine with this collision of church and state?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,287 posts, read 54,108,627 times
Reputation: 40586
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I'm merely pointing out the flimsy and whimsical nature of liberal ideology. One lady in Podunk USA refuses to bow to the alter of homosexual marriage because it is contrary to her religion, and liberals go ape shat crazy. One old white man who allegedly speaks for God comes along and pushes a moral authority to enact religion-backed social policies that he believes conforms to God's will and liberals can't get enough of him.
Now do you understand where I'm coming from?
A completely fallacious argument. People think she's wrong because she refuses to obey the law of the land.
And, if a Christian pastor stands before Congress and preaches "fire and brimstone" about XYZ social policy and Congress acts on that fire and brimstone as a result, you will be perfectly fine with this collision of church and state?
That's what the Supreme Court is to decide... If the policy violates separation of church and state. Government 101
The actual legislation, no. The person who sponsored the bill, absolutely possible, and likely.
That you put the impetus on me to cite a current piece of legislation when in fact the Pope is just now visiting the US shows me just how fundamentally disingenuous you're willing to be in tackling this topic. That's all you know how to do. Dig into the weeds and try to find some point that's not even being contested and say "ah ha, gotcha!"
I'm not phased. This is your modus operandi. Always has been.
Only I didn't ask you to cite a current piece of legislation.
I just want to know what religious-backed laws you fear. You can postulate to your heart's content.
Actually, it's you who should be embarrassed. For real.
What exactly did the pope say that you find so objectionable? Is it about caring for the poor? Is that so offensive to you? Yet not carrying out a persons job is considered admirable to you? Your ethics are totally backwards.
What the Pope said is not the issue. This is about the collision of church and state, and the palpable hypocrisy in embracing the Pope's moral teachings as a matter of social policy while some woman in Podunk gets thrown in jail for standing up for religious belief in the face of a social policy she disagrees with.
If some evangelical pastor stands before Congress spewing hate, and Congress responds with legislation in agreement, what would you say to that?
And, if a Christian pastor stands before Congress and preaches "fire and brimstone" about XYZ social policy and Congress acts on that fire and brimstone as a result, you will be perfectly fine with this collision of church and state?
That is hypothetical, and unrelated to this discussion.
It hasn't happened, and the opposite equivalent hasn't happened. Not with the Pope, not ever. Now, I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell and his type had (and has) the ear of many conservative law makers, but he has not stood before congress (that I am aware of) and preached fire and brimstone.
Quit making stuff up. Your diversions are taking the value of this forum away from people who want to discuss real issues.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,287 posts, read 54,108,627 times
Reputation: 40586
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
That's a very good point.
However, Netti is not a religious leader.
When will you make a very good point and defend the premise of the OP?
You cry hypocrisy after comparing the treatment of:
A) A man making a perfectly LEGAL speech
and
B) A woman refusing to obey the law of the land and do the job she's paid to do
In WHAT parallel universe other than the "I just wanna whine about liberals" one are A & B even remotely comparable and WHY would any reasonably sane person not expect them to be treated differently?
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.