Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Father Heathen]

No one can control who gets or spreads covid. You are grasping.

You can lessen the probability of contraction. I assume you wash your hands after using the restroom, or cover your mouth/nose when you cough or sneeze?
Next time you're undergoing surgery, insist that the doctors forgo the masks, which they wear for your benefit rather than theirs, btw.

 

[Stevicus]

So I'd call'm "evil", not "malicious".
To be evil doesn't require such intent.

Interesting distinction between "malice" and "evil" (sounds like it would be a name for a sitcom).

I think politicians might hold malice towards those they might deem enemies, whether personal or ideological. This might be true for political factions and those who simply can't agree to disagree and feel they have to go further in punishing those they see as adversaries.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think politicians might hold malice towards those they might deem enemies, whether personal or ideological.

I've seen that too.

 

[Stevicus]

I've seen that too.

So have I. Politics is a dirty business.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes that's exactly what it is, a rumor.

If you distrust science, take all of your technology, including whatever device you're using to access this forum, and toss it in the trash, along with any medication you take.

 

[Revoltingest]

So have I. Politics is a dirty business.

It attracts mean people.

 

[Stevicus]

It attracts mean people.

Yeah. And then there are those who enter politics with idealism and nice dispositions, but having to get into the gutter with their political adversaries makes them mean.

I like this description of Nixon as "the darkness reaching out for the darkness." Kind of sums up politicians.

 

[F1fan]

Here's a further quote from the Dred Scott decision. In particular, I'd like you to note the word that I have highlighted in bold red, and note how that, all by itself, denies even "personhood" to black slaves:

"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them."

That is language in action. And that's what people calling blastocysts "babies" are doing.

I have not seen anti-abortion people reverse this, by claiming that pro-choice people are subjugating pre-born humans as an inferior class whose rights are not being recognized. Of course this would be highly flawed since rights are assigned at birth. But a missed opportunity by them. I don't think they are terribly interested in law or what is constitutional.

 

[F1fan]

That's exactly what it is. Get real instead of hiding behind euphemisms.

Oh the irony.

You can't even argue against reproductive right objectively. You constantly use misleading words and assertions. The religious right is not a moral group of people. You are political and using this, among other, issues to divide the nation. As noted you offer no solutions to the consequences of banning abortion. You just ignore that responsibility. And that is how we know you aren't moral, nor care about actual children in the USA.

The religious right are not moral people. Moral people are accountable for what they do, and you refuse to be accountable for the consequences your tribes will cause.

 

[InChrist]

Interesting point about them:
If they had no knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil they could not have known disobedience was wrong, they could have not have known what a lie is, they could not have understood "do not do this for there will be consequences." They simply would have been like a toddler who really does not know any better.

I don’t think the scriptures portray them as toddlers. instead, we are told God gave them dominion over the earth and they were to practice good stewardship. They spent time in fellowship with God each day. Surely God shared information, instruction, and wisdom with them and they were intelligent to understand disobedience and distrusting God was wrong. Besides, God made it simple; just one tree to avoid and He explained the consequences.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. And then there are those who enter politics with idealism and nice dispositions, but having to get into the gutter with their political adversaries...

They don't have to.
It's a choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think the scriptures portray them as toddlers. instead, we are told God gave them dominion over the earth and they were to practice good stewardship. They spent time in fellowship with God each day. Surely God shared information, instruction, and wisdom with them and they were intelligent to understand disobedience and distrusting God was wrong. Besides, God made it simple; just one tree to avoid and He explained the consequences.

He explained, but what good does that do when God did not put int the knowledge of right and wrong into them according to the myth?

 

[Stevicus]

They don't have to.
It's a choice.

They do if they want to win.

 

[Revoltingest]

They do if they want to win.

I disagree.

 

[Stevicus]

I disagree.

I can't think of any successful candidate in either major party who has run a totally "clean" campaign or isn't otherwise covered with mud by election day.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't think of any successful candidate in either major party who has run a totally "clean" campaign or isn't otherwise covered with mud by election day.

It's still a choice....one that
says who they really are.

If what you say were true, then
Democrats also prefer abusive
candidates.

 

[Stevicus]

It's still a choice....one that
says who they really are.

If what you say were true, then
Democrats also prefer abusive
candidates.

Yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don’t think the scriptures portray them as toddlers. instead, we are told God gave them dominion over the earth and they were to practice good stewardship. They spent time in fellowship with God each day. Surely God shared information, instruction, and wisdom with them and they were intelligent to understand disobedience and distrusting God was wrong. Besides, God made it simple; just one tree to avoid and He explained the consequences.

But if they didn't have knowledge of right and wrong they couldn't have known.
It was an unfair design from the start, doomed to failed, and yet the Religious Right speaks of this as though the judge was righteous and that the design was fair and we failed. But how can we fail when Adam and Eve knew nothing of good and evil and this omniscient god would have necessarily known the end result of his arrangement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh the irony.

You can't even argue against reproductive right objectively. You constantly use misleading words and assertions. The religious right is not a moral group of people. You are political and using this, among other, issues to divide the nation. As noted you offer no solutions to the consequences of banning abortion. You just ignore that responsibility. And that is how we know you aren't moral, nor care about actual children in the USA.

The religious right are not moral people. Moral people are accountable for what they do, and you refuse to be accountable for the consequences your tribes will cause.

Like those who are against needle exchange programs. You cannot love thy neighbor and care for the least among yourselves if you are against needle exchange programs. They reduce disease transmissions, they reduce death, they help identify addicts and get them treatment, and they help keep dirty needles off the streets which is a great thing for all.
The Religious Right Christians, however, oppose these quite strongly and promote their nonsense that it's promoting drug use and abuse and will do all harm and no good. That's bearing false witness, something they aren't supposed to do.
Amd what's with this discrimination thing they claim to have a right to? Jesus did not discriminate during his Ministry. That's not saying he approved of sin or was ok with people doing it, but he certainly lacked a "no gays" policy. He didn't say certain sinners aren't allowed. Where do they get off on saying it's their right to discriminate when their religion explicitly prohibits them from judging others?

 

[Secret Chief]

And overall the restrictions have been dropped because

they, and the vaccines, have contributed to bringing the global death rate down.