JDH, it's just hard to converse with you in civil fashion because nearly all your observations are so wildly delusional. Here is just such another. The prospect of theocracy seems miniscule at best. The probability of looming atheocracy is just about certain. We see it all about us every day. One wonders sometimes what color is the moon on your planet.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
JDH, it's just hard to converse with you in civil fashion because nearly all your observations are so wildly delusional. Here is just such another. The prospect of theocracy seems miniscule at best. The probability of looming atheocracy is just about certain. We see it all about us every day. One wonders sometimes what color is the moon on your planet.
You are entitled to your opinion, but civility is a choice. You can choose to be civil, and make your point without attacking the person, or not. At any rate it is a choice, nobody forces you to converse in an un-civil fashon. If you disagree with somebody, make your point, and defend it with facts, not insults.
JDH, it's just hard to converse with you in civil fashion because nearly all your observations are so wildly delusional. Here is just such another. The prospect of theocracy seems miniscule at best. The probability of looming atheocracy is just about certain. We see it all about us every day. One wonders sometimes what color is the moon on your planet.
You are entitled to your opinion, but civility is a choice. You can choose to be civil, and make your point without attacking the person, or not. At any rate it is a choice, nobody forces you to converse in an un-civil fashon. If you disagree with somebody, make your point, and defend it with facts, not insults.
Can you defend this with facts? "The prospect of a theocracy is more of a possibility now than it ever has been." I think its delusional.
JDH, it's just hard to converse with you in civil fashion because nearly all your observations are so wildly delusional. Here is just such another. The prospect of theocracy seems miniscule at best. The probability of looming atheocracy is just about certain. We see it all about us every day. One wonders sometimes what color is the moon on your planet.
You are entitled to your opinion, but civility is a choice. You can choose to be civil, and make your point without attacking the person, or not. At any rate it is a choice, nobody forces you to converse in an un-civil fashon. If you disagree with somebody, make your point, and defend it with facts, not insults.
Can you defend this with facts? "The prospect of a theocracy is more of a possibility now than it ever has been." I think its delusional.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, and I disagree. I don't believe that the US will become a theocracy because there are too many who would resist it, but I believe the threat is real, (just as Senator Goldwater expressed) and the threat is made evident to me by uncompromising politically active conservative evangelical Christians, many of whom are in the House of Representatives now.
JDH, it's just hard to converse with you in civil fashion because nearly all your observations are so wildly delusional. Here is just such another. The prospect of theocracy seems miniscule at best. The probability of looming atheocracy is just about certain. We see it all about us every day. One wonders sometimes what color is the moon on your planet.
You are entitled to your opinion, but civility is a choice. You can choose to be civil, and make your point without attacking the person, or not. At any rate it is a choice, nobody forces you to converse in an un-civil fashon. If you disagree with somebody, make your point, and defend it with facts, not insults.
Can you defend this with facts? "The prospect of a theocracy is more of a possibility now than it ever has been." I think its delusional.
maybe not right away but just as an example you have many people on the national stage in leader ship, mostly in the GOP that have said things like the founding fathers wanted a christain nation and use words like God told me to run for president (michelle bachman). You also have "christian" used more than ever by the party. The constitution says to "separate" church and state. They are twisting the facts. You had the GOP blasting Obama because there was a lie going around saying he was Muslim. If he was who cares? Why should religion play a factor?
No. The constitution says nothing of the sort. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Yes you are right... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
however it implies the separation of church and state. so passing laws on christian or muslim beliefs is against what that statement above says.
Thomas Jefferson said in a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."
One could argue that states and govt have consistently broken the "free" speech and peaceably assemble right.
No. The constitution says nothing of the sort. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "
That is correct. The Constitution does not mention the seperation of Church & State, but it does not establish the United States as a Christian Nation either. I'm sure you are aware of the discussion of the seperation of church & state in the Federalsit Papars, and why the founding fathers feared the prospect of the church merging with the government or acquiring political power because of the actions of the Church of England.
No. The constitution says nothing of the sort. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "
That is correct. The Constitution does not mention the seperation of Church & State, but it does not establish the United States as a Christian Nation either. I'm sure you are aware of the discussion of the seperation of church & state in the Federalsit Papars, and why the founding fathers feared the prospect of the church merging with the government or acquiring political power because of the actions of the Church of England.
Richard Mourdock----the most recent dimwitted Repubican to venture down the path of saying things that result in foot in mouth and continue to make me wonder why in "Gods" name they want to involved in women's womb's soooooooo bad. During his debate last night in Indiana...
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
Richard Mourdock----the most recent dimwitted Repubican to venture down the path of saying things that result in foot in mouth and continue to make me wonder why in "Gods" name they want to involved in women's womb's soooooooo bad. During his debate last night in Indiana...
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
Yea, and in the 1300's it was God's will that the Bubonic Plague wiped out nearly half of the population of Europe. Mark my words, if it is ever established law that life begins at conception, then every woman who has a misscarriage will come under criminal investigation for murder, and many will be prosecuted and convicted.
Richard Mourdock----the most recent dimwitted Repubican to venture down the path of saying things that result in foot in mouth and continue to make me wonder why in "Gods" name they want to involved in women's womb's soooooooo bad. During his debate last night in Indiana...
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
Yea, and in the 1300's it was God's will that the Bubonic Plague wiped out nearly half of the population of Europe. Mark my words, if it is ever established law that life begins at conception, then every woman who has a misscarriage will come under criminal investigation for murder, and many will be prosecuted and convicted.
I am not going to dig out our previous argument on this, but like I said before. This would never happen. Intent is the key. The fact that almost a quarter of current pregnacies end in miscariage pretty well demonstrates this is a natural occurence. I agree that there may need to be some regulatory safe-guards put in place to protect against overzealous prosecutions, but to claim pro-life proponents would want to jail those who suffer through a miscarriage is every bit as offensive and wrong as those that insist pro-gay marriage supporters will want to marry dogs and cats next. It is fallacious slippery slope BS.
Richard Mourdock----the most recent dimwitted Repubican to venture down the path of saying things that result in foot in mouth and continue to make me wonder why in "Gods" name they want to involved in women's womb's soooooooo bad. During his debate last night in Indiana...
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
Yea, and in the 1300's it was God's will that the Bubonic Plague wiped out nearly half of the population of Europe. Mark my words, if it is ever established law that life begins at conception, then every woman who has a misscarriage will come under criminal investigation for murder, and many will be prosecuted and convicted.
I am not going to dig out our previous argument on this, but like I said before. This would never happen. Intent is the key. The fact that almost a quarter of current pregnacies end in miscariage pretty well demonstrates this is a natural occurence. I agree that there may need to be some regulatory safe-guards put in place to protect against overzealous prosecutions, but to claim pro-life proponents would want to jail those who suffer through a miscarriage is every bit as offensive and wrong as those that insist pro-gay marriage supporters will want to marry dogs and cats next. It is fallacious slippery slope BS.
I would never have believed that in the United States of America, we would create the worlds largest prison population either, but we have as a result of the drug war. Ironically, most of our prisons are becoming privatized, and now there is actually an economic incentive to imprison people. Mark my words. If life is defined as begining at conception, zealots will blame women for their miscarriages, and will want them prosecuted. At the very least, every single miscarriage will be investigated by the criminal justice system, and that will involve involuntary incarceration during the investigation.
Richard Mourdock----the most recent dimwitted Repubican to venture down the path of saying things that result in foot in mouth and continue to make me wonder why in "Gods" name they want to involved in women's womb's soooooooo bad. During his debate last night in Indiana...
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
Yea, and in the 1300's it was God's will that the Bubonic Plague wiped out nearly half of the population of Europe. Mark my words, if it is ever established law that life begins at conception, then every woman who has a misscarriage will come under criminal investigation for murder, and many will be prosecuted and convicted.
I am not going to dig out our previous argument on this, but like I said before. This would never happen. Intent is the key. The fact that almost a quarter of current pregnacies end in miscariage pretty well demonstrates this is a natural occurence. I agree that there may need to be some regulatory safe-guards put in place to protect against overzealous prosecutions, but to claim pro-life proponents would want to jail those who suffer through a miscarriage is every bit as offensive and wrong as those that insist pro-gay marriage supporters will want to marry dogs and cats next. It is fallacious slippery slope BS.
I would never have believed that in the United States of America, we would create the worlds largest prison population either, but we have as a result of the drug war. Ironically, most of our prisons are becoming privatized, and now there is actually an economic incentive to imprison people. Mark my words. If life is defined as begining at conception, zealots will blame women for their miscarriages, and will want them prosecuted. At the very least, every single miscarriage will be investigated by the criminal justice system, and that will involve involuntary incarceration during the investigation.
So... seeing as the US has a TFR of 2-3 and that ~25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, you truly believe if this sort of measure is passed more than 50% of women in the US will be jailed at some point in her life for investigation? And this rather large block of voters (in fact majority) is just going to let this happen?
And yes, zealots call for stupid ****. They do for anything. Just cause a few demand stupid things, doesn't mean it is what the majority will want.
Richard Mourdock----the most recent dimwitted Repubican to venture down the path of saying things that result in foot in mouth and continue to make me wonder why in "Gods" name they want to involved in women's womb's soooooooo bad. During his debate last night in Indiana...
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
Yea, and in the 1300's it was God's will that the Bubonic Plague wiped out nearly half of the population of Europe. Mark my words, if it is ever established law that life begins at conception, then every woman who has a misscarriage will come under criminal investigation for murder, and many will be prosecuted and convicted.
I am not going to dig out our previous argument on this, but like I said before. This would never happen. Intent is the key. The fact that almost a quarter of current pregnacies end in miscariage pretty well demonstrates this is a natural occurence. I agree that there may need to be some regulatory safe-guards put in place to protect against overzealous prosecutions, but to claim pro-life proponents would want to jail those who suffer through a miscarriage is every bit as offensive and wrong as those that insist pro-gay marriage supporters will want to marry dogs and cats next. It is fallacious slippery slope BS.
I would never have believed that in the United States of America, we would create the worlds largest prison population either, but we have as a result of the drug war. Ironically, most of our prisons are becoming privatized, and now there is actually an economic incentive to imprison people. Mark my words. If life is defined as begining at conception, zealots will blame women for their miscarriages, and will want them prosecuted. At the very least, every single miscarriage will be investigated by the criminal justice system, and that will involve involuntary incarceration during the investigation.
So... seeing as the US has a TFR of 2-3 and that ~25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, you truly believe if this sort of measure is passed more than 50% of women in the US will be jailed at some point in her life for investigation? And this rather large block of voters (in fact majority) is just going to let this happen?
And yes, zealots call for stupid ****. They do for anything. Just cause a few demand stupid things, doesn't mean it is what the majority will want.
Yes I do believe that. Just examine the % of the black population that has been imprisioned as a result of the drug war in the last 30 years. I never would have believed that people could be stopped and strip searched because they weren't wearing a seat belt, or be required to piss in a cup at any time to satisy either an employer or a cop. I truly believe that if life is legally defined as begining at conception, then it will naturally follow that a criminal investigation must be conducted every time a miscarriage occurs, and manywill be imprisioned as a result. What if she ran a marathon the day before, or if she had a couple of glasses of wine, or etc, etc, etc. People will want their pound of flesh for the "destruction of innocent life" because of behavior they do not approve of, and womenwill be incarcerated. Mark my words.
Yes I do believe that. Just examine the % of the black population that has been imprisioned as a result of the drug war in the last 30 years. I never would have believed that people could be stopped and strip searched because they weren't wearing a seat belt, or be required to piss in a cup at any time to satisy either an employer or a cop. I truly believe that if life is legally defined as begining at conception, then it will naturally follow that a criminal investigation must be conducted every time a miscarriage occurs, and manywill be imprisioned as a result. What if she ran a marathon the day before, or if she had a couple of glasses of wine, or etc, etc, etc. People will want their pound of flesh for the "destruction of innocent life" because of behavior they do not approve of, and womenwill be incarcerated. Mark my words.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Consider your words marked. Just let me say, I don't see it happening, not one fellow pro-lifer I know would support this, and I can't not vote my conscience even if some may try to twist a law designed to protect one group of innocents to persecute another equally blameless group.
Yes I do believe that. Just examine the % of the black population that has been imprisioned as a result of the drug war in the last 30 years. I never would have believed that people could be stopped and strip searched because they weren't wearing a seat belt, or be required to piss in a cup at any time to satisy either an employer or a cop. I truly believe that if life is legally defined as begining at conception, then it will naturally follow that a criminal investigation must be conducted every time a miscarriage occurs, and manywill be imprisioned as a result. What if she ran a marathon the day before, or if she had a couple of glasses of wine, or etc, etc, etc. People will want their pound of flesh for the "destruction of innocent life" because of behavior they do not approve of, and womenwill be incarcerated. Mark my words.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Consider your words marked. Just let me say, I don't see it happening, not one fellow pro-lifer I know would support this, and I can't not vote my conscience even if some may try to twist a law designed to protect one group of innocents to persecute another equally blameless group.
Comments
however it implies the separation of church and state. so passing laws on christian or muslim beliefs is against what that statement above says.
Thomas Jefferson said in a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."
One could argue that states and govt have consistently broken the "free" speech and peaceably assemble right.
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said, explaining that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother's life is in danger.
And yes, zealots call for stupid ****. They do for anything. Just cause a few demand stupid things, doesn't mean it is what the majority will want.