Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How does your religion or lack thereof affect your politics?
I'm religious and it has a great affect on my political views. 7 12.50%
I'm religious and it has a moderate affect on my political views. 5 8.93%
I'm religious and it has little or no affect on my political views. 7 12.50%
I'm not religious and it has a great affect on my political views. 8 14.29%
I'm not religious and it has a moderate affect on my political views. 4 7.14%
I'm not religious and it has little or no affect on my political views. 25 44.64%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2010, 09:26 PM
 
10,181 posts, read 10,262,186 times
Reputation: 9252

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I am capable of compartmentalization. The two should have nothing to do with each other. I don't get involved in politics--because politics offends me. But I don't attend religious services either. I have beliefs, I just don't see the need to attend services.
One has nothing to do with the other for me either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2010, 10:18 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,215,209 times
Reputation: 18824
Nice. But truthfully, i'm not one to lionize the Founding Fathers. Not even George Washington. Could have something to do with the fact that i'm an African American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2010, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,796,716 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker View Post
So why don't y'all leave the moral dilemma of not being able to feed or get health care for a 2 day old up to the participants who had said 2 day old, rather than society? 1. There's adoption instead of handouts. 2. Shoot, there's even condoms (or, get this one: don't have sex if you can't afford the consequence whether it be a baby or the HIV cocktail) that would prevent someone who can't afford to feed or medically care for a 2 day old.
1.

2. A little late for that when the baby's already two days old, isn't it?

Last edited by CaseyB; 11-22-2010 at 12:24 PM.. Reason: rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:48 AM
 
Location: .....
956 posts, read 1,114,568 times
Reputation: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
1.
2. A little late for that when the baby's already two days old, isn't it?
Ah Katiana, excellent post. The contradictory views these people hold are unbearable at times.

Last edited by CaseyB; 11-22-2010 at 12:24 PM.. Reason: quote removed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 08:23 AM
 
3,562 posts, read 5,228,739 times
Reputation: 1861
I am not religious and it very much impacts my political views.

If someone who is elected or a candidate can't keep their religious views back stage then I have a problem. Religion and government is a bad mix and we have no real need to regress.

Back in the day (Antioch v Alexandria v Constantinople v Rome), people were needlessly slaughtered by thugs (both rulers and clergy for lack of a better term) all professing to know what God wanted with the underlying motive of a lot of power. All of this over whether Jesus was God or was he a man and then at what point did he become divine. Had the big JC been too much of a man or human it would have been too Jewish -oh no lets kill Jewish people. Better to make him a superhero. Well, Mary can't be the mother of god......that harkens back to pagans lets destroy them. Just back and forth. And did anybody learn anything? Hell no, we had to go through hundreds more years of moral crusades (all state religions are a moral crusade) and an endless slaughter of people.

And the kicker is that when they were pulverizing each other for a few centuries deciding what people were going to believe-they launched moral crusades because every little act of nature was retribution from God because his policies were not carried out. Each side thought that their God policies must be followed.

Pat Robertson says Haiti deserved the earthquake because God didn't want them to be Catholics. And we have the technology and science to demonstrate that is not the case. The WM3 are still on death row due to suspected "witchcraft". And don't get me started on the number of people in prison for "devil cults" and day care centers. It is 2010.

So, yeah, I have no problem with religious people providing they keep that far away from government and issues that impact the people that live in this country. It has never worked before and it will not work now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 08:49 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,618,904 times
Reputation: 1275
anyone that is not affected by their religion is a hypocrite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,113,688 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
1.
2. A little late for that when the baby's already two days old, isn't it?
Honestly, the most responsible thing an unprepared parent can do is give the child up for adoption. Yes, that is a Christian thing to do, if you want to put it in those terms. If the people having the baby are too young, too poor, too crazy, too angry/abusive or too irresponsible/immature, they should definitely consider adoption.

Even when the baby is 2 days old.

But they should have thought about all that before they even got pregnant to begin with.

Last edited by CaseyB; 11-22-2010 at 12:25 PM.. Reason: original quote removed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,029 posts, read 14,213,258 times
Reputation: 16752
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrjam View Post
What astounds me the most is that some of the people who pretend to be Christians can accept so easily that many in this society do not have good access to health care.
It is equally amazing that such proponents accept that slavery (compelled labor for the benefit of another) is a "Good thing".

Or ignore that it was government's fault that we have the medical nightmare.

Who else criminalized the unlicensed trade in health care?
Who else caused inflation?
Who else caused skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums?
Who else caused administrative overhead?
Who else is to blame, but government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,029 posts, read 14,213,258 times
Reputation: 16752
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
If Christians belieevd in this concept of universal health care, why has it only been a recent invention in the last century and a half?
Methinks you have your terms mixed up.

"Universal Health care" means anyone can care for anyone.

Criminalization of the unlicensed trade in health care is a recent 'innovation' - roughly late 1800's - early 1900's.

Now, no one has the "right" to give nor receive healthcare without first getting government permission (license).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,796,716 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
Honestly, the most responsible thing an unprepared parent can do is give the child up for adoption. Yes, that is a Christian thing to do, if you want to put it in those terms. If the people having the baby are too young, too poor, too crazy, too angry/abusive or too irresponsible/immature, they should definitely consider adoption.

Even when the baby is 2 days old.

But they should have thought about all that before they even got pregnant to begin with.
So a couple get pregnant while employed, lose their job(s) during the pregnancy, and they should give up the kid for adoption?

Last edited by CaseyB; 11-22-2010 at 12:30 PM.. Reason: cited quote(s) were removed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top