mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is even more if we go down that route.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
There is even more if we go down that route.
Thank you for such a clear example of what I was talking about:
No, you just dismiss the freedoms you don't care about as not worth having or as illegitimate.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So then be honest with yourself; you're not pro freedom, you're pro "nanny state", specifically a theocracy. Your response proves my point.
Also, how would a monogamous marriage magically result in AIDS?
Also, do you support the prohibition of alcohol or tobacco?
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Based on freedom I can make a limitation to that in some cases.
There's more to it than that. It's not like we are voting and get Coke or Pepsi. There is a huge difference between what the two political parties advocate for, and the visions for the future. There is very little that I approve of with the GOP these days. I don't see them have the best interest of the average citizens, but especially not marginalized groups, like women's rights, gay right, the rights of transgender youth and adults, healthcare access, public safety, etc. The GOP has shown itself to be on the wrong moral and practical side of these positions consistently over the last 20 years.
It is about votes, no kidding. But who has a defensive set of policies that work to help the average citizen and the planet going forth?
Really? Do you have an Oxford Language Dictionary? This is their definition:
"The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)."
Or are you claiming the right to define the English language for everybody, all by yourself?
Well Democrats have been less and less advocates for the death penalty. It's been the pro-life, religious right that has been desperate to find drugs to kill inmates, often to disastrous results. These right wing leaders get to make laws that say execution isn't murder, and they get away with that since they make the rules for themselves. But how many inmates have been executed that turned out to be innocent? How many judges have intervened in execution cases because the powers that be wouldn't admit to a flawed prosecution?
Why? They are perfectly free to not abort and have sex only with members of the gender, and pray to whomever. As long as they do not extend that to others.
And The woman has the right to choose. So, it is your right vs. my right. Cannot be determined because rights, like morality, is a human constructs.
And who would call a few cells embryo a baby? Looks more like an amoeba to me.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
They are attempting to control the government and move as close to theocracy as they can. But since I no longer live in America or fall under the jurisdiction of its laws, they have no more effect on me than anybody else not living there.
I'm optimistic that all of this will have a good outcome after a lot of women endure a lot of unhappiness. I see this as leading to a wresting away of power from both the church and the right. I see this leading to a blue wave in November and a fillibuster-proof consolidation of Democrats in the Senate (Manchin and Sinema should be not be considered Democrats), with the eventual passage of Roe-type legislation through Congress, and very possibly a reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, and idea that has been bandied about but has gained little traction with Biden et al. But now? He is free to push for that with minimal political blowback. This could be the path to the disempowerment of the Republican party if it's thought that they have gone too far and are now threatening personal liberty and American values such as church-state separation.
I am hopeful that all of this can be used to beat the Republican into irrelevance. Once, I would have thought the Democrats too namby-pamby to take advantage and act decisively and aggressively, but I see that fire in Pelosi and Schumer now. They're energized, savvy, and I believe willing to do what needs to be done to protect American rights and values.
So what do you want, anarchy? Do you have any solutions? Anyone can complain.
Oh the mental gymnastics to think of smoking pot as "destroying yourself" and keeping deadly weapons as "bettering yourself." Be careful you don't sprain something.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Many people would probably not agree with late-term abortion as being tasteful, but I don't know if they are giving that a chance to even be debated. Still, I assume that the longer the woman waits, the more traumatic is probably gets for her to make a decision, so I still wouldn't want to imprison her. There would be reason she waited so long, and I wouldn't want laws that are blind to that.
Laws are not supposed to be based on religious beliefs or norms. We can see how religious morals can influence a voter in some ways, but what we see with the alliance of the political and religious right are morally problematic and hypocritical. What we are seeing with the GOP is a deliberate pandering to this minority group for federal policies, and the rest of the nation has to be ruled by these unpopular ideas.
Minority rule is more and more a problem in the USA, with gerrymandering and the Electoral College. And now it includes the Supreme Court because the 6-3 conservative majority was built for political reasons to fulfill right wing policies, not the constitution or what is best for the whole of the USA. This is bad faith politics. It's bad faith religion. It's all about power, control, and abuse.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I was wondering how
Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?
appertains to me, which is the question you asked.
That is merely your opinion. Laws are based upon
what a society values & opposes. The sources of
these perspectives could be anything....religion,
tradition, secular humanism, objectivism, etc.
Who are you to say which groups should be
excluded from having any influence, eh.
What it all boils down to is the reality of competing
interests. I advocate for mine. You advocate for
yours. Others advocate for theirs. And some
unholy untidy unhappy compromise will result.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
by yours.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Thanks for the heads up. I'll just go and kill myself.
What's the citizenship of that baby?
Nope, and even if it had been once, that's been changed, and wouldn't matter if it hadn't.
I see a lot of the use of definitions these days as if they had some power over reality, that one can say, "by definition," and that establishes what is or must be true. I saw this the other day when somebody told me that God was eternal and uncreated by definition, as if that made God real and possessing those attributes.
Two poor examples. You have the right to refuse the vaccine, but no right to own unregistered guns, even if the law allowed for that.
Many consider those laws valuable.
That's laughable. The right is presently attempting to take the abortion right away, is attempting to suppress votes in certain demographic groups, and is attempting to suppress discussion of transgender and racial issues in schools.
Did you mean like impeaching and convicting a rogue president, or the laws against sedition? Those laws? How about the laws broken leading to convictions that were overturned by pardons as favors. I suppose you don't consider those sensible laws, since the right apart from Cheney and Kinzinger seem to have no use for such laws.
No, that is *your* definition. The *legal* definition allows for same-sex couples.
Why would someone want it? Survivor benefits, insurance, joint custody, visitation rights, and all sorts of other *benefits* given by the government to those who are married.