CNN is asking if someone ELSE is unethical? Let me get this straight.....CNN, the clinton news network, is asking if someone other than CNN is unethical??? Did these people once work at CNN? 'Cause THAT would make sense...... ??? (???)
Really? That's not my impression of him. I could bring up countless quotes from the gospels that show he was anything but. In fact, this is the very reason why, in the story, the Jews were confused, because they expected somebody who would rid them of Roman oppression.
As a Muslim i think separation of religion and the state will keep the the religion pure, i also support the separation of state from religious ritual.
religion natural place is in the hart of man/woman not in the corridor of power.
@falcon02012 A requirement in Islam is the fusion of church and state. They are one and the same in the Islamic context. By saying that you support secularism, you are denying your religion.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution...there is no "line." There is religious neutrality in the Constitution. But the lobbying wings of any group should NOT be getting tax exempt status! and yes, the Constitution should be respected!
Sister Marge is a con artist. Calling Jesus a 'political activist' is the height of flim-flammery. The whole notion of non-profits are a joke, with all kinds of people making a very nice living off of them but not producing much of value.
Tell me exactly where and how many times God is mentioned in the highest law of the land, the Constitution? The one and only answer is ZERO, thanks to our secular founding fathers.
The spread of any virus, as with religion, in no way validates it's alleged benevolence or it's claims to legitimacy. You should note that having it's alleged followers dropping F-bombs in the name of what they consider divine doesn't help, and certainly doesn't impress.
Religion is already out of US Government. Public is constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion , you fascist atheists haven't been able to take that away from us yet.
Obviously you're ignorant of separation of Church and Sate already in the U.S. Constitution and obviously any atheist wanting to ban religion from the public is FASCISTIC. You atheists are hilarious ... mostly ignorant of the facts and arrogant about it.
I shouldn't even bother with you but..... on public buildings in Washington are scriptures from the bible.... the congress prays and most schools have god in the pledge... in the courtrooms you used to HAVE to place your hand on a bible to swear oath.. the president places his hand on a bible to swear oath public representatives ALWAYS mention god and pray to it on public floors..... WE HAVE A NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FUCKING HOLIDAY SHALL I CONTINUE???
subnooba, If Congress prays it isn't because it is required by law to do so.
If buildings have Christian scripture written on them it's because U.S. has a Christian culture & history. Separation of Church & state doesn't give you license to wipe this out.
If President puts his hand on the Bible when swearing in, this is his choice and tradition, not required by law to do so.
No one forces you atheists to take a Christian Holiday or observe one either.
it's also not a legal requirement by any student in any US public school to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Looks like you struck out there again Subnoob.
Just to let you know ive been on another video for about 30 mins now.. youre becoming annoying and how old are you? you make attacks like you're 16 Fred dickand
Christian aid does good work, however this is because it has a secular agenda. Oxfam, Doctors without frontiers are other excellent bodies which go to where aid is needed.
Evangelicas are rejected as vultures by everyone, all they do is recruit bigots.
They are seen as morons spreading ignorance and hate.
Non use of condoms has led to evangelicals in the USA have higher rates of STD and unwanted pregnancy
You are a moron, cult gibberish, harming uncaringly for recruits.
Aid agencies withdrew from Afghanistan because they accuded Bush of using famine as a weapon of war; only allowing aid to go to certain groups and starving others.
Disgusting and immoral in the extreme.
Your groups supported this evil.
Do not claim that evangelicals are nice or good people now.
You drank from the poisoned chalice.
Now everyone knows that the evangelical right is nasty bigots.
Spread the message the Antichrist's Beast's Marks, 666 were drawn in the Lottery on election day in Illinois and all TVs broadcast it on the day the press was publishing Obama's victory-story
o the world 1 year later
Be ECHOES and throw back Obama's Antichrist disaster
Reveal Him 1 year later
He has no certificate
Army nuclear-power clearance-fraud is High Treason: only courts decide on death-raps
These religious creeps push for things like not giving aid to countries which promote condom use. homosexual death penalty in Uganda, not giving aid to other faiths etc
They are the bigots and hate mongers who have trashed aid under Bush.
Kick religion out of politics hard
They have shown themselves to be evil and threaten vulnerable and poor people just to get power and influence for their bigot cults.
I dont need evidence. This isn't a court of law. Easy enough to find information on this if you need evidence.
Yes of course convincing people to use condoms is fighting Aids.
No in fact an atheist can't do anything a believer can. Explain why and how the universe got here being one of them. Unabomber was an atheist and suicide goes against the teachings of Islam & Christianity.
forum on Youtube is NOT the real world and it is NOT some kind of imaginary court of law you have in your head that stipulates where the burden of proof rests.
...and the rest of your blabbering makes no sense either.
well good luck trying to get anyone to listen to your arguments when you cant provide evidence...or when providing "easily" attainable evidence is inconvenient for you....
gimme a break...your arguments were inacurate and/or weak and without evidence...
and i demolished them...
thats ur problem, not mine. and your the hissyfit you threw when you got called out is downright entertaining....
The Constitution contains not one mention of God. The secular founding fathers (sorry, Christians) knew that hundreds of years later, they would have to prevent Scientologists from lobbying to get Dianetics and E-meters in every classroom.
It's ethical. There are many atheists who are good people and want others to be able to practice their religion, but there are many who want it stomped out, and the people who practice it to have penalties.
The level of my concern about religious lobbying is equal to that of lobbying by corporations and other groups. I just think that the churches who do this shouldn't be tax-exempted if they participate in such activities.
This is a false choice. Everyone has lobbyists in Washington advocating for their own views. Religious people are no different and should not be treated differently.
Jesus may have been real, but he was not a political activist. The closest he came was getting pissed off in the temple, but that was still within religion. He talked about gov't as being irrelevant to religion, like when he said pay taxes because the state made up the money anyway.
It's VERY refreshing to see some public coverage (even if it was only this 2 minute thing) on the subject, and the point about church influence while still being tax exempt.
Jesus was NOT a political activist, NO, Jesus was a myth!!!! The EVIL Catholic Church made Jesus and made him all it wanted to make him in order to CONTROL the masses!!
These people definatly hate freedom. They hate it because with the freedom of religion THEY cant force us to believe what they believe. They want to take over this country, destroy the constitution and place a theocracy in our democracy's stead.
Misinterpreting and applying Scripture does not make your case. The whole concept of ethical behavior comes from the concept of right and wrong as defined by the Judeo-Christian thinking.
People who don't have a religion can still be influenced by religion. The whole basis of the United States is a belief in God.
No they were not, they were written by people who were influenced by the ideas of the enlightenment.. which among other meant that religion should not be mixed with the state. Why the hell do you think they added amendments? Did god forget some? Monotheists think all gods are false except their own. Cute, and silly.
Laws were written based on the concepts found in the works of Aristotle, plato, and other philosophers. Failed again. How's that chauvenism working out in your "life of the mind?"
The DoI states that our rights are given to us by our CREATOR - God. It is on that principle that our laws are based as well as other Judeo-Christian concepts. America was never intended to be a theocracy. Being founded on a concept of God is not the same as being ruled by God.
Because a man writes it down, that makes it true? I'd also like to ask why some people are afraid that Pres. Obama is/will/has taken our rights away, if there is a god and if he gives us our rights then no man can take them away. Actually, if there is a god who gives rights, why not give us the rights to food, clothing, shelter and medicine before say the right to turn away soldiers who want to bunk down in our homes for the night?
You are very confused. There is a profound difference between a right and an entitlement. We fight for our rights and defend our freedom. The concept that God has given us rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what has made us the best nation in the world. It is your mindset that has ruined nations.
Couldn't have been rampant imperialism and "Manifest Destiny" could it? The slaughter of native people, the subjectation of Africans, the wholesale rape of resources? Nooo. It's my "mindset." If our right are given to us by the Christian God, then why is one freedom of religion and the other freedom of speech? As I understand it, that God is jealous and hates blasphemy.
Did I say that? What I said was that we, Americans, were not the first or the last to do these things. People think that white Europeans are the center of all evil in the world. Indians were killing each other for the same reasons that we killed them for centuries. Blacks had been enslaving other Blacks for centuries as well. It does not make it right, but it does put it in context for time. We don't kill people like that today or enslave them. However, in some countries, they still do.
You seemed to be sayin, originally, that it's okay for politics and religion to mix, that this is a Christian nation. I was trying to express what a bad idea that is, for everyone. It appears that most of the Founding Fathers, Including Thomas Jeffereson, were deists, no hard-core Christians. They did not want religion and politics to mix.
You missed completely what I said. People of faith, regardless of their beliefs, are Americans and are entitled to have their voice in Congress heard. Lobbying is not a crime. Everyone has a lobbyist there advocating for their beliefs, whether Christian or not. Simply because something is supported by Christians does not make it religious. Stealing is both morally and legally wrong. It is not a religious issue but social issue.
You are misreading the Scriptures. What was done under the Old Testament is NOT relevant. But, to your point, the people who break the law know the punishment upfront, so it is just.
No logical basis? Are you kidding me? How about... "Hey, I don't want you taking my stuff, killing me, or raping my family... So how about you don't do it to me, and I won't to you..." Thats what society is about. Cavemen knew it was better to work together as a society than to just do what you want. The morality was spawned from social behaviors. Of course, I know when I think of "Logical" I automatically thing "Religion". Cause, you know... it makes so much sense!
What if I am bigger, stronger, and smarter than you, and can take your stuff without fear of consequence? How is it better for me to work with you if I don't need to?
Yeah, and what if I were superman, and needed no one? First off, there is almost never one in a society that is Bigger, Stronger, smarter and faster... But even if there was, that one person would be expelled from the society for their hurting the society. I doubt someone could make their own clothes, cook food, hunt, gather, make shelter, make weapons, set traps and pass along their genes. The hermits who can do all those things rarely spawn children. There are no women when your alone.
Not really...people deceive themselves into believing that they would be what they are today without the influence of religion. It is simply not true. It was the Judeo-Christian philosophy that underpinned our legal system.
What nature of christianity? You cannot even agree among yourselves! Ask several priest what they think of this and that piece and you'll get different answers.
This is also why there are tons of denominations. And tons of differerent religions. And they all change with time, moving along with the moral zeitgeist of the time. In some cases because they have.. if the bible was software then it is very old, outdated an buggy.. why doesn't god author the book himself? Maybe because he is invented!
I would freely admit that todays society is what it is DESPITE religion, not because of religion. Religion has always tried to hamper any furthering of intelligence. Just remember, people who thought the world was round, or that it was not the center of the universe were considered heretics and put to death. Yet these people spoke out. So yes, religion has had a huge influence on humanity, but I believe the world would be better off without it.
Wrong, that's a canard that has been the relgious' central claim for centuries, as they attempt to pillage the worls. Ethics are a pagan's invention, made by the people who denied the gods. Law isn't dependant on religion either, so don't go there unless you want to be known as a liar twice. Socratic imperatives demand that you crack a real book and drop the fairytales.
@CommonSenseJoe - you lie. You don't want Govt to "respect" your values and concerns, you want Govt to implement them, hence the lobbying. The Constitution was written to protect people from the influence of religion...that is what non-establishment actually means.
No, it does NOT. The government has been imposing morals and values since the beginning. This has always been a country found on a concept of God. If you don't like it, too bad. Go somewhere else.
@CommonSenseJoe - you keep lying. Please quote the exact section from the constitution that mentions a nation "found on a concept of God."? And no weasling. No duplicity. Just the quote. Asshole.
@CommonSenseJoe - the DOI has zero status in law...surely someone with your superior intelligence would know that. You should also know that the word "God" was not mentioned in the DOI. So, having Govt "respect your values and concerns" amounts to no more than an assertion on your part to have your religious worldview influence Govt policy. That is unconstitutional - the fact that you know it, yet persist, makes you a liar in terms of your dishonest intent.
@Yakslipper - I never said it had a status in law. I was speaking about the foundation of our country. It was approved in July 1776. It declared the "WHY?" our country should exist. It was not until September 1787, more than ten years later, that we had our Constitution.
There is nothing unconstitutional about individuals of similar views coming together to lobby congress. Unions do it. Environmental groups do it. Old people do it.
Again insults just show your lack of intelligence.
You are weasling. The US explicitly excluded religion from the Constitution to protect different crackpot religious groups FROM EACH OTHER! And you are duplicitous - by using your religious worldview to influence Govt policy you are acting unconstitutionallybecauser, by definition, if you succeed you are inserting religion into the political arena and contravening the non-establishment clause.
The fact that you remain an asshole is not without evidence.
@Yakslipper You are wrong on so many counts. By your thinking, only atheists should be allowed to influence the government because they have no religion. Religion is woven into the very fabric of our country. The Government cannot establish a specific religion nor can it restrict the FREE exercise thereof. There is NOTHING about being free from the influence of religion. You can be godless and be American but America is built on the concept of God. Learn to live with it.
@CommonSenseJoe - not at all. But it isn't free speech we are arguing about...it is your intent to infliuence law for the benefit of your beliefs. That's what you lie about. Freedom FROM religion means exactly that. Freedom FOR religion means you can practice what you want. It's a subtle difference that you clearly don't understand or respect. The constitution is clear, even if you don't like or accept it. Claiming America is built on God doesn't make it true.
@Yakslipper I don't know where you learn English, but freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. I respect the difference, as did the founding fathers who prayed for God's wisdom when writing the Constitution.
@CommonSenseJoe - the US was not founded on the DOI, it was founded on the constitution. The DOI expressed the rationale for being independent of British rule - that was awkward because the British monarch claimed divine provenance. That explains the religious wording in the DOI, even though the word "God" was not written. If the "concept of God" was so important, why was it explicity omitted from the foundational document?
@Yakslipper When did our country begin? Why was the DOI adopted by the Continental Congress? Did our nation NOT exist for the eleven years it took to written the Constitution?
Actually, the word "God" is in DOI "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
@CommonSenseJoe - "Nature's God" "Creator" - wow, I didn't realize how strongly stated this was!!! The US "began" when the constution was ratified by the signing states. Before then there was no United States...or do you think there was a United States before then? What was it called? Your founding document - the constitution - was explicit about not endorsing religion. I think you need to accept that and get over it.
@Yakslipper Now you are just grasping at straws. Even a 5th graded knows our nation began in 1776. It took over a decade to writing and have the Constitution ratified. It does not talk about religion because the government is suppose to LEAVE IT ALONE.
@CommonSenseJoe - I'm not the one lying about my intentions...you are. You want to claim special privilege for the place of religious influence in US Govt...I'm pointing out why that is not allowed under the constitution. You disagree but can't explain why. But let's put that aside. Why don't you tell us what you would want Govt to change as a result of Govt "respecting your values and hearing your concerns"? That should tell us how duplicitous you really are.
@Yakslipper Where have I ever claim a "special privilege"? All I have said it that there is nothing wrong with religious people lobbying the government. It is you who have claim, incorrectly, that it violates the Constitution.
What would I want to change about the government? Lots of things - our policy on dealing with the poor, abortion, family and marriage issues as well. Did you think I wanted the government to make you go to church? Every American has the right to lobby Congress.
@CommonSenseJoe - so do you want to expand access to publicly funded abortion? Legalize gay marriage? Just trying to figure out whether you are wanting to impose iron-age morality on the rest of us.
@Yakslipper Neither! I would outlaw abortion and never support gay marriage. Call it what you want, but supporting the murder of unborn children does not make you sophisticated, just evil.
@CommonSenseJoe - it's really all about using your iron age religious beliefs as a means of influencing Govt to pass laws that affect how everyone else lives their lives? We could get into a debate about whether, and at one point, abortion is reasonable but you might hit me with the unanswerable (and completely unprovable) "soul" argument and we hit a dead end. Why the perverse interest in legislating against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Another biblical issue?
@Yakslipper Regardless of what you think about "iron age" morals and values, we are just as entitled to try to influence our government as much as you with your lack of any morals or values. The issue of abortion is not about the "soul". It is simply about when does life have value. There is no disagreement as to when life begins, only as to when does child have rights.
I have no interest in what goes on in a person's bedroom as long as it stays there. Marriage is off limits.
@Yakslipper I don't, the individual's actions determine that. If someone takes another person's life, he or she should forfeit there own life. However, an unborn child has committed no act or crime deserving of death. They have unfortunately been conceived by a woman who values her convenience over their life.
As for marriage, there is absolutely no value added to society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage is between a man and woman. It always has.
@CommonSenseJoe - on what basis have you arrived at these positions? Are these religious teachings that you subscribe to...or do you just hold these opinions to be true? Throughout history black people have always been subjected to predjuduce and discriminating behavior - the bible supported this - but we now know how wrong this is. The fact that some people (you) see some significance in historical precedence for hetero marriage doesn't make it right. On what basis do you claim you are right?
@Yakslipper Several sources have determined my morals and values. The Bible, properly understood, is the principle source.
Slavery has existed for centuries and was not exclusive to blacks. In fact, blacks themselves practiced slavery. The Bible did not support it, but regulated it. There is a significant difference. As for marriage, there is a reason that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman for so long. It is benefits society to promote THAT relationship.
@CommonSenseJoe - here's the problem. When you use the Bible as a moral source of any kind you have to go through contortions to explain away the (for example) exhortations to own slaves, stone adulterers etc. Using that as the basis for imposing your "moral framework" on a secular culture is flat out objectionable. We could both agree that reducing abortions (for example) is highly desirable, but using a biblical basis for determining illegality is using religion to control society - theocracy!
@Yakslipper There is no problem. Religion has been the foundation of our laws since the beginning of our nation. There is no need for contortions in understanding the Bible. For example, stoning adulterers was acceptable at the time because they were violating God's Law which they agreed to follow. No one is suggesting we stone adulterers today because we are NOT a theocracy as Israel was.
Is your problem with morality in general or with Biblical morality?
@CommonSenseJoe - on what basis do you amend what the bible explicitly commands to suit modern times? Is the bible your source for morality concerning gay marriage? It seems you are saying that we don't stone adulterers because our secular morality knows it is wrong. If that is so, we couldn't be more in agreement.
@Yakslipper I don't amend what the Bible says. I take the time to understand what the Bible says. We don't stone adulterers today because that is not part of our civil law. Under the Law of Moses, it was part of the civil law for a reason. God was building a nation from a slave people and obedience was paramount.
No, the Bible is not my source for opposing gay marriage. It is wrong on every level, moral, social, and even a public health standpoint.
@CommonSenseJoe - when the bible demands that adulterers be stoned how much time does it take you to understand that? And are you saying that god accepted that moral standard in the past but not now, or is it more likely our secular values helped us realize how stupid the bible really was?
I guess you don't like gays. By what right do you feel able to legislate against their equality? Sounds like you are happy to sit in judgment of their behavior, even when it has no effect on you.
@Yakslipper It appears that we have strayed from the subject at hand to your issues with Christianity. First, I understand it. It is you who do not understand it. Do you even have any idea WHY it was a capital offense? You cannot take a text out of its proper context and expect to understand it.
What equality? Marriage has never been defined by sexual orientation. Should bisexuals get to marry two people? Should pedophiles get to marry a child? Marriage is what it is.
@CommonSenseJoe - you understand it? I'm open to the explanation.
Asking erroneous questions based on false analogies is a classic strawman. What right do you claim to prevent their equal treatment given that no "crime" is being committed by permitting their marriage? What are you afraid of for which you claim the right of law to protect you?
@Yakslipper Yes, I do, but I don't think you want to understand it. When the hung horse thieves in the old west, there was a reason behind it. A horse was not a pet but an essential part of their livelihood. You have to look at things in their context.
Homosexuals have equal treatment under the law. They are free to marry anyone they want so long as they meet the legal requirements. It is that simple. They want to redefine marriage completely for absolutely no benefit to society.
@CommonSenseJoe - we understand it the same way...women (for it was they who were stoned) were chattal. Now, where in the bible does the contextual explanation come?
Homosexuals do not have equal treatment. They cannot protect their assets, they are subject to unequal treatment in the tax laws. Tell me, who would be the victim of the crime of them marrying? It would be of no benefit to you (or I) should gay marriage be legal, but it would correct descriminatory behavior.
@Yakslipper Actually, both the man and the woman were stoned if caught. The context is both a different time, different place, and God was doing something different in the world. The Jewish people agreed to obey the laws God gave them. They knew the punishment for breaking them. Therefore the punishment was just and moral.
As for homosexuals, they are treated no different than others who do qualify for marriage. It is not a question of anything being a crime.
@CommonSenseJoe - and you know god was doing something different in the world? How? Punishment isn't just and moral just because you know the consequences someone arbitrarily sets for breaking a law. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
@Yakslipper The Bible is about God's relationship with Mankind from the beginning. What He commanded at one point is not necessarily valid at another time with different people. If I know the law and agree with it, then the punishment is just and moral. There is nothing arbitrary about it. God explained the law to the people and they accepted it with all the blessings and consequences. I know you don't understand it because you don't believe in God. Not to worry, He still believe in you.
@CommonSenseJoe - you are right, I don't believe there's a god. The contortions you put yourself through to rationalize the unacceptability of your god's commandments reveals the paucity of your argument. The fact that you and I know that some behavior is wrong iustrates the complete irrelevance of anything you might claim on his behalf. That's why lobbying from that perspective is with the intent of imposing your religious will on others.
@Yakslipper There are no contortions. Properly understanding the Bible requires the same effort as understanding any written document. There is nothing unacceptable about God's commands when you understand them.
No one imposing their will on anyone. Lobbying is legal and every American is entitled to do it, regardless of perspective. You cannot exclude a group of people because they have religious convictions.
@Yakslipper There is really no such a thing as "gay" marriage because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a specific legal, emotional, moral, and social commitment between a man and a woman that we promote with recognition because it serve a compelling state interest to do so.
Marriage has never been defined by sexual preference. While some restrictions have changed, the basic definition has always been the same.
@CommonSenseJoe - you're ducking the issue. The fact that you don't like the idea of gay marriage doesn't make it wrong. Marriage is a purely human construct. There is no such thing as marriage "by definition." No individual has the right to demonize and deny the lifestyle choices of anyone. Please specify to victims of the crime of gay marriage, assuming you want to criminilize those who take vows in defiance of your homophobic law.
@Yakslipper Actually, it is you who are "ducking". You are trying to make the issue about me. We all know how marriage is and has been defined. The mere fact that one must say "gay" marriage proves my point.
I would not be criminalizing anything. Gay people can make vows to each other. They simply will not be recognized by the government as a legal marriage. Two straights can do the same but if they don't follow the law, their's will not be legal either.
@CommonSenseJoe - we refer to "gay" marriage simply because this group has marriage denied to them, not because it invalidates the idea of union. You've proved nothing other than your prejudice. The fact that you want to enshrine this prejudice...along with a whle series of other prejudices that arise from your religious convictions...as a legal framework for everyone is presumptious and arrogant. A bit like claiming god "believes" in me - phew, really comforted by that!!
@Yakslipper They were never qualified for marriage because they choose a relationship that excluded them. You call me names and make accusations because you have nothing to offer.
Regardless of whether you think it is "presumptuous or arrogant" does not matter. My right to lobby my government is still me right regardless. Someday, I hope you understand, but that is up to you.
@CommonSenseJoe - of course it's your right to lobby. I just point out that you lie about your intent, and your intent is unconstitutional. Pointing out your hypocrisy regarding executing criminals whilst claiming right to life is just part of the process. That you believe you have the right to define how others should live their lives despite it being of zero consequence to you is the logical outcome of the contortions you put yourself through because of your imaginary friend.
@Yakslipper Neither my intent nor my action are not unconstitutional, which is the point of this conversation. There is no hypocrisy between supporting capital punishment and opposing abortion. When someone kills another individual, their actions have consequences. An unborn child has not done a single thing to deserve death.
I have not defined how others should live their lives. I only oppose them redefining marriage for a social agenda. How do you know their is zero consequence to me?
@Yakslipper I believe we all choose to engage in behavior, whether sexual or not. The idea that we are born with a sexual "orientation" is a myth. Individuals who have functioned normally as a heterosexual, getting married and having children, who then suddenly find that they are "gay" make my point. Feelings are not objective. A pedophile can claim he is born that way, but it is his actions that matter.
@CommonSenseJoe - please provide one shred of scientific evidence that being gay is a choice. Stating so emphatically that "we are born with sexual orientation is a myth" is a statement of gross ignorance and poor education and carries zero weight. It simply reveals the extent of your confirmation bias. Oh, and your homophobic prejudice.
It will only take science to discover a foetal test for being gay for religious wackjobs like you to support abortion. Cheap property in Uganda I've heard.
@Yakslipper It is you who have to prove it is not a choice, not me. Good luck with that because there is no genetic or physiological difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is all based on subjective feelings, not objective evidence.
Actually, a test showing an unborn child to be gay would be your problem not mine. Would you still support a woman's right to an abortion if the sole reason was the child would be gay?
@CommonSenseJoe - easy for you to hide behind propositions you make without evidence. There is already growing evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality - you can start with Bearman and Bruckner in 2002. Of course I don't expect you to read it, even less understand it, but it is there.
Your abortion conditions make no sense in my mind at all. You just stated your opposition without defining any criteria at all. Just wondering whether your hatred of gays trumps your opposition to abortion?
@Yakslipper Oh, I understand it. The study had no conclusive evidence because there is none. It is all subjective and based on feelings, not facts. In writing about that and other "studies", one person said, "there has not yet been determined any single cause which determines whether orientation will be towards the same or opposite sex". The reason is that they are attempting to prove something that does not exist. We choose to do what we do.
@CommonSenseJoe - no you don't understand it at all. You argue from ignorance. There may turn out to be multiple "causes" at the genetic level. How about quoting me the scientific study that supports your proposition? Good luck.
@Yakslipper How do I prove the obvious? Do you not choose to engage in a behavior? Are gay people without self-will now? They choose to engage in homosexuality. This is a fact. There motives or reasons to do so are not objective and cannot be tested or verified.
@Yakslipper It is a simply question. If we ever find the "gay" gene, and can test for it prior to birth, would you STILL support a woman's right to an abortion solely because the child would be gay? I still would not support abortion because it is still murder regardless of one's motivation.
I don't hate gay people. I do not approve of their lifestyle, their behavior, but I don't hate them. The problem is they hate themselves. This is why they have 4 times the rate of suicide.
@CommonSenseJoe - the conditions under which I support abortion are not changed by sexuality. It sounds like your opposition isn't either - we can agree on something, but for completely different reasons. High rates of suicide aren't evidence for self-hatred - you must be careful not to project your own biases when making such blanket statement. There is a strong correlation between persecution and suicide...you might not hate gays, but you are happy to deny them equal rights.
@Yakslipper Actually, the higher rates of suicide exist even in countries where homosexuality has been generally accepted for decades. They also have a higher rate of drug and alcohol abuses and physical violence against their partners. There is no reason to promote such a relationship with the benefits of marriage.
@CommonSenseJoe - you are assuming correlation is the same as causation. It's always best to remember that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data". The fact that you can't find a shred of credible research evidence to support your assertion clearly illutrates this. I was always taught to be wary of people who spoke with such certainty from a position of ignorance - I don't know why your comments brought that to mind. You speak in generalizations...that's all you ever do. It keeps it simple.
@Yakslipper I am assuming nothing. I am simply stating facts. Homosexuals have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate of suicide, substance abuse, and domestic violence. They probably greater health problems as well but it is not politically correct or feasible to try to do a long term study. They have a reduced life expectancy. All of this means that the government should not be promoting such a relationship with the benefits of marriage. What is wrong with simple if it is the truth.
CNN is asking if someone ELSE is unethical? Let me get this straight.....CNN, the clinton news network, is asking if someone other than CNN is unethical??? Did these people once work at CNN? 'Cause THAT would make sense...... ??? (???)
malithe00 10 months ago
"Jesus was a political activist..."
Really? That's not my impression of him. I could bring up countless quotes from the gospels that show he was anything but. In fact, this is the very reason why, in the story, the Jews were confused, because they expected somebody who would rid them of Roman oppression.
burchdc 1 year ago 2
As a Muslim i think separation of religion and the state will keep the the religion pure, i also support the separation of state from religious ritual.
religion natural place is in the hart of man/woman not in the corridor of power.
falcon02012 2 years ago 7
@falcon02012 A requirement in Islam is the fusion of church and state. They are one and the same in the Islamic context. By saying that you support secularism, you are denying your religion.
Pooternackle5 6 months ago
what the hell is this bullshit. this woman is trying to bring religion to politics? politics and religion are one, just to get the fucking vote.
Demithehunter 2 years ago
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution...there is no "line." There is religious neutrality in the Constitution. But the lobbying wings of any group should NOT be getting tax exempt status! and yes, the Constitution should be respected!
Gyrode 2 years ago
@Gyrode Better start with the unions, the AARP, and the environmental groups.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Sister Marge is a con artist. Calling Jesus a 'political activist' is the height of flim-flammery. The whole notion of non-profits are a joke, with all kinds of people making a very nice living off of them but not producing much of value.
glennd7962 2 years ago
@glennd7962
According to YOU.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
I'll tell you what's an affront to all things holy -- that reporter is wearing a short-sleeve sweater!!
Cainer666 2 years ago
Ignoring all the vitriol that automatically comes up when religion and politics come up, especially when they mix.
I noticed that the nun in the clip said that jesus was a political activist, if he existed that may be so, but he also paid taxes, that where the
"Render unto Caesar" quotes comes from.
The churches don't and so they should not get involved.
dominictemple 2 years ago
Haha, Jesus was a lobbyist! Now I really don't like him.
stlcityboy 2 years ago 3
I find it interesting that they omitted the "Rev." from in front of Barry Lynn's name, but left "Sister" in front of the nun's name.
Turambar88 2 years ago
Tell me exactly where and how many times God is mentioned in the highest law of the land, the Constitution? The one and only answer is ZERO, thanks to our secular founding fathers.
The spread of any virus, as with religion, in no way validates it's alleged benevolence or it's claims to legitimacy. You should note that having it's alleged followers dropping F-bombs in the name of what they consider divine doesn't help, and certainly doesn't impress.
infinityjrh 2 years ago
Take Religion out of government and out of the public? Fix half our problems
Supernova310 2 years ago
stupernova,
Religion is already out of US Government. Public is constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion , you fascist atheists haven't been able to take that away from us yet.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
LOL!!! Okay we start with an insult the body is a lie and the conclusion is an ignorant statement.... go the fuck away
Supernova310 2 years ago
supnob,
Obviously you're ignorant of separation of Church and Sate already in the U.S. Constitution and obviously any atheist wanting to ban religion from the public is FASCISTIC. You atheists are hilarious ... mostly ignorant of the facts and arrogant about it.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
I shouldn't even bother with you but..... on public buildings in Washington are scriptures from the bible.... the congress prays and most schools have god in the pledge... in the courtrooms you used to HAVE to place your hand on a bible to swear oath.. the president places his hand on a bible to swear oath public representatives ALWAYS mention god and pray to it on public floors..... WE HAVE A NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FUCKING HOLIDAY SHALL I CONTINUE???
Supernova310 2 years ago
subnooba, If Congress prays it isn't because it is required by law to do so.
If buildings have Christian scripture written on them it's because U.S. has a Christian culture & history. Separation of Church & state doesn't give you license to wipe this out.
If President puts his hand on the Bible when swearing in, this is his choice and tradition, not required by law to do so.
No one forces you atheists to take a Christian Holiday or observe one either.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
lol never mind I agree to disagree with you ....jackass
Supernova310 2 years ago
subnooba,
it's also not a legal requirement by any student in any US public school to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Looks like you struck out there again Subnoob.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
Just to let you know ive been on another video for about 30 mins now.. youre becoming annoying and how old are you? you make attacks like you're 16 Fred dickand
Supernova310 2 years ago
subnooba...
why is it that you would think I might care in the slightest way what video you're "on" now?
FredFoothand 2 years ago
@FredFoothand You are the fascist.
worthy and unworthy categories?
chosen people's?, you verifiably kill huge amounts in Africa and are seen as the worst part of the problem
hateful moronic cult trash
you start the religious conflicts and intolerance.
How dare you who pushed for the death penalty for gays in Uganda call yourself anything else but Nazis?
universally you are seen as the spoilers and moron cheats who's only interest is cult membership
anti education too
you are a disgrace.
marsCubed 2 years ago
marscud,
wrong you blabbering psychotic idiot. I didn't kill anyone.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
@FredFoothand
Christian aid does good work, however this is because it has a secular agenda. Oxfam, Doctors without frontiers are other excellent bodies which go to where aid is needed.
Evangelicas are rejected as vultures by everyone, all they do is recruit bigots.
They are seen as morons spreading ignorance and hate.
Non use of condoms has led to evangelicals in the USA have higher rates of STD and unwanted pregnancy
You are a moron, cult gibberish, harming uncaringly for recruits.
go shove it
marsCubed 2 years ago
arrscrap,
so when you say evangelicals are rejected by everyone you assume to represent everyone?
Typical narcissistic, uninformed, arrogant, sociopathic atheist.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
Fundamentalists and their giving only to those they recruit is sick, a form of slavery.
All evangelicals ever do is build churches and do deals with the nastiest regimes for converts.
bigoted religious 'morality' of wotthy and unworthy, of non condom use.. IS the problem. tribalism, division, war and hate
Slither away under a rock.
human dignity is a right, not your nasty hand out from a cult, for which the price is corp rape and anti intellectual trash.
fundamentalist = the morons = the problem
marsCubed 2 years ago
marscrap,
only problem with your ignorant dogmatic over generalizations is that you're WRONG.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
@FredFoothand Why did evangelicals support Bush?
Aid agencies withdrew from Afghanistan because they accuded Bush of using famine as a weapon of war; only allowing aid to go to certain groups and starving others.
Disgusting and immoral in the extreme.
Your groups supported this evil.
Do not claim that evangelicals are nice or good people now.
You drank from the poisoned chalice.
Now everyone knows that the evangelical right is nasty bigots.
Just look at your language and hate in here.
marsCubed 2 years ago
marscrap,
Maybe Evangelicals supported Bush because of his $15 billion commitment to combat HIV/AIDS and his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief?
You really ARE clueless aren't you?
FredFoothand 2 years ago
marsCubed
OBAMA ANTICHRIST'S HUMANITY'S HISTORY'S WORST-EVER CRIMINAL
Spread the message the Antichrist's Beast's Marks, 666 were drawn in the Lottery on election day in Illinois and all TVs broadcast it on the day the press was publishing Obama's victory-story
o the world 1 year later
Be ECHOES and throw back Obama's Antichrist disaster
Reveal Him 1 year later
He has no certificate
Army nuclear-power clearance-fraud is High Treason: only courts decide on death-raps
c my page
EndOfTimesApocalypse 2 years ago
@FredFoothand Why is it that Evangelicals backed war and Bush?
Why do evangelicals support far right groups who say cut aid?
why do evangelicals support the uganan death penalty for gay people, 7 years for advocating gay rights.
Terror and bigotry, anti human policy which kills millions regarding condoms and Aids
why do evangelicals support the very corps who do the harm?
evangelicals are the problem, they are the ignorance which kills.
Evangelical ignorance cult IS the problem in much of Africa
marsCubed 2 years ago
marzrcrap,
A lot of people backed war & Bush... so what?
Evangelicals do not support death penalties for Gays. You're full of crap. You're the ignorant one.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
yea, fight aids with abstinence programs and withholding funds from agencies that supply condoms to AIDS stricken areas
nathanb2004 2 years ago
These religious creeps push for things like not giving aid to countries which promote condom use. homosexual death penalty in Uganda, not giving aid to other faiths etc
They are the bigots and hate mongers who have trashed aid under Bush.
Kick religion out of politics hard
They have shown themselves to be evil and threaten vulnerable and poor people just to get power and influence for their bigot cults.
marsCubed 2 years ago
marscubed,
you know nothing , Christian Evangelists have done more to fight AIDS and raise AIDS awareness than any other group.
What have you loser atheists done to fight aids lately ?
FredFoothand 2 years ago
interesting that you make that claim without any evidence to back it up...
trying to convert poor africans to christianity is not fighting AIDS. convincing them not to use condoms is not fighting AIDS.
An atheist can do anything a believer can...and doesnt need to do it in the name of God.
However, a believer can do things in the name of God which an atheist wouldnt accept. Example: suicide bombing
we might not fight AIDS as badly as you, but at least we arent suicide bombers...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
ensmoker,
I dont need evidence. This isn't a court of law. Easy enough to find information on this if you need evidence.
Yes of course convincing people to use condoms is fighting Aids.
No in fact an atheist can't do anything a believer can. Explain why and how the universe got here being one of them. Unabomber was an atheist and suicide goes against the teachings of Islam & Christianity.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
then provide evidence if it is so easy...
if convincing people to use condoms is fighting AIDS, then why are evangelicals (like pres Bush) so against it?
Just because you can make up your own story, or recite a 5000 year old INCORRECT story, doesnt make it true...
So clearly, you cant tell me about the origins of the universe either...at least accurately that is...
The unibomber wasnt a suicide bomber....hes serving life in prison. Besides he would prob have needed god for that...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
ensmoker,
find the evidence yourself, not my job to do work for your lazy ass.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
thats not how argumentation works in the real world.
the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You made the claim, without evidence...and im calling you out on it.
i can sense that you are tired of getting owned so its ok if you dont want to respond with the evidence that you said was so "easy" to find....
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
endsmoker,
forum on Youtube is NOT the real world and it is NOT some kind of imaginary court of law you have in your head that stipulates where the burden of proof rests.
...and the rest of your blabbering makes no sense either.
FredFoothand 2 years ago
well good luck trying to get anyone to listen to your arguments when you cant provide evidence...or when providing "easily" attainable evidence is inconvenient for you....
gimme a break...your arguments were inacurate and/or weak and without evidence...
and i demolished them...
thats ur problem, not mine. and your the hissyfit you threw when you got called out is downright entertaining....
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
and in case you dont realize that Islam is just as irrational as christianity is?
How many atheists are killing doctors? How many atheists are trying to teach creationism in science class?
How many atheists are preventing scientific research?
Seems to me like atheists are the only ones not acting like complete assholes or idiots...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
Tax exempt religious organizations should not be able to lobby. I have no problem with it if you are taxed though just like everyone else.
sddallas 2 years ago
The Constitution contains not one mention of God. The secular founding fathers (sorry, Christians) knew that hundreds of years later, they would have to prevent Scientologists from lobbying to get Dianetics and E-meters in every classroom.
infinityjrh 2 years ago
Excellent observation!
sddallas 2 years ago
thank you, have a good one.
infinityjrh 2 years ago
religion needs to keep its ugly head out of politics
166beads 2 years ago 2
Hooray for Barry Lynn !!
billybee53 2 years ago
However, religious lobbyists need to stick to religion.
TirianCreed 2 years ago 2
It's ethical. There are many atheists who are good people and want others to be able to practice their religion, but there are many who want it stomped out, and the people who practice it to have penalties.
TirianCreed 2 years ago
@TirianCreed
So who are these atheists who want to penalize religious belief? I must say I have never read or heard one so I'm interested to know.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Name an an an atheist organization that wants people to be punished for their religious practices outside of existing law plz.
Khronofox 2 years ago
The level of my concern about religious lobbying is equal to that of lobbying by corporations and other groups. I just think that the churches who do this shouldn't be tax-exempted if they participate in such activities.
altosax1st 2 years ago
Strange that someone with a name that includes "common sense" seems to be lacking any
Madjacker08 2 years ago
Yeah, you got me with that one.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
This is a false choice. Everyone has lobbyists in Washington advocating for their own views. Religious people are no different and should not be treated differently.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Jesus may have been real, but he was not a political activist. The closest he came was getting pissed off in the temple, but that was still within religion. He talked about gov't as being irrelevant to religion, like when he said pay taxes because the state made up the money anyway.
It's VERY refreshing to see some public coverage (even if it was only this 2 minute thing) on the subject, and the point about church influence while still being tax exempt.
theseanze 2 years ago
Jesus was NOT a political activist, NO, Jesus was a myth!!!! The EVIL Catholic Church made Jesus and made him all it wanted to make him in order to CONTROL the masses!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
These people definatly hate freedom. They hate it because with the freedom of religion THEY cant force us to believe what they believe. They want to take over this country, destroy the constitution and place a theocracy in our democracy's stead.
scarmulletpart2 2 years ago 2
If religion wants to get into politics make them pay the fucking admission fee.
And I think it's a horrible unethical idea to have "religion" dictate laws.
See the recent slip up about homosexuals in Africa.
Avatra1 2 years ago 6
We pay our taxes like everyone else. You would not have any ethics if it were not for religion.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No, the churches are tax exempted, Ethics doesn't depend upon religious ideas.
The mere thought that "ethics" is dependant upon religions is laughable, tell me where is the ethical notion in bashing babies against rocks?
Or sending bears to rip children to shreds because they made fun of a bald man?
Is there good in religion, sure there can be, do you need it to be good?
Hell no.
Avatra1 2 years ago 2
Misinterpreting and applying Scripture does not make your case. The whole concept of ethical behavior comes from the concept of right and wrong as defined by the Judeo-Christian thinking.
People who don't have a religion can still be influenced by religion. The whole basis of the United States is a belief in God.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"The whole basis of the United States is a belief in God."
Oh... so THATS why we have a government backed religion! I was wondering what the WHOLE BASIS for the United States was, thank you.
But, wasn't England an entire nation that was based on the belief in god? Hmmm.
Madjacker08 2 years ago
Actually, no, it was not. We get our rights from God, not from the king, the government, or the majority.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
See Carlin's piece on rights.
watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8
They're man made just like religion.
The laws are not written after the bible, if they were they'd look completely different.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Sorry, not taking lessons from a vulgar, pothead.
Laws were written based on the concepts of the Bible.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Calling people names..how very Jesus like of you.
No they were not, they were written by people who were influenced by the ideas of the enlightenment.. which among other meant that religion should not be mixed with the state. Why the hell do you think they added amendments? Did god forget some? Monotheists think all gods are false except their own. Cute, and silly.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago 3
Laws were written based on the concepts found in the works of Aristotle, plato, and other philosophers. Failed again. How's that chauvenism working out in your "life of the mind?"
kern0099 2 years ago
Nope, US law was written based on a concept of God.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Is that why the Constitution never mentions God? Didn't Jesus tell Pilate: "My kingdom in no part of this world"?
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Because it was already stated in the Declaration of Independence, which of course you know, CAME FIRST.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
HS civics was a few years ago for me, so remind me again; what laws are enumberated in the Declaration of Independence? Why isn't the US a theocracy?
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
The DoI states that our rights are given to us by our CREATOR - God. It is on that principle that our laws are based as well as other Judeo-Christian concepts. America was never intended to be a theocracy. Being founded on a concept of God is not the same as being ruled by God.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Because a man writes it down, that makes it true? I'd also like to ask why some people are afraid that Pres. Obama is/will/has taken our rights away, if there is a god and if he gives us our rights then no man can take them away. Actually, if there is a god who gives rights, why not give us the rights to food, clothing, shelter and medicine before say the right to turn away soldiers who want to bunk down in our homes for the night?
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
You are very confused. There is a profound difference between a right and an entitlement. We fight for our rights and defend our freedom. The concept that God has given us rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what has made us the best nation in the world. It is your mindset that has ruined nations.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Couldn't have been rampant imperialism and "Manifest Destiny" could it? The slaughter of native people, the subjectation of Africans, the wholesale rape of resources? Nooo. It's my "mindset." If our right are given to us by the Christian God, then why is one freedom of religion and the other freedom of speech? As I understand it, that God is jealous and hates blasphemy.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Nope, it was American exceptionalism.
The native Americans were killing each other long before we got here. Africans were enslaving each other long before we did it.
God wants you to have a choice.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
So, that makes killing and slavery okay?
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Did I say that? What I said was that we, Americans, were not the first or the last to do these things. People think that white Europeans are the center of all evil in the world. Indians were killing each other for the same reasons that we killed them for centuries. Blacks had been enslaving other Blacks for centuries as well. It does not make it right, but it does put it in context for time. We don't kill people like that today or enslave them. However, in some countries, they still do.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago 2
You seemed to be sayin, originally, that it's okay for politics and religion to mix, that this is a Christian nation. I was trying to express what a bad idea that is, for everyone. It appears that most of the Founding Fathers, Including Thomas Jeffereson, were deists, no hard-core Christians. They did not want religion and politics to mix.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago 2
You missed completely what I said. People of faith, regardless of their beliefs, are Americans and are entitled to have their voice in Congress heard. Lobbying is not a crime. Everyone has a lobbyist there advocating for their beliefs, whether Christian or not. Simply because something is supported by Christians does not make it religious. Stealing is both morally and legally wrong. It is not a religious issue but social issue.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago 2
I have my rights-no middle man required.
Any chance of you changing your moniker to "Faith-BasedJoe"???
infinityjrh 2 years ago
Actually no.
How about stoning people that work on sundays?
Avatra1 2 years ago
You are misreading the Scriptures. What was done under the Old Testament is NOT relevant. But, to your point, the people who break the law know the punishment upfront, so it is just.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Bwahahahaha!
right let's remove the old testament, and what do you have left. Fuck all.
The new testament is built upon the old testament.
Avatra1 2 years ago
No ethics without religion? LOL. So what did people do before all these modern religions?
A sense of morality is provided by evolutionary means in order to survive.. the same thing is true for (other) animals.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
There is no logical basis for morality without religion. Without the Judeo-Christian foundation, we would not have become the great nation we are.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No logical basis? Are you kidding me? How about... "Hey, I don't want you taking my stuff, killing me, or raping my family... So how about you don't do it to me, and I won't to you..." Thats what society is about. Cavemen knew it was better to work together as a society than to just do what you want. The morality was spawned from social behaviors. Of course, I know when I think of "Logical" I automatically thing "Religion". Cause, you know... it makes so much sense!
Madjacker08 2 years ago 3
Excellent retort
Avatra1 2 years ago
What if I am bigger, stronger, and smarter than you, and can take your stuff without fear of consequence? How is it better for me to work with you if I don't need to?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Yeah, and what if I were superman, and needed no one? First off, there is almost never one in a society that is Bigger, Stronger, smarter and faster... But even if there was, that one person would be expelled from the society for their hurting the society. I doubt someone could make their own clothes, cook food, hunt, gather, make shelter, make weapons, set traps and pass along their genes. The hermits who can do all those things rarely spawn children. There are no women when your alone.
Madjacker08 2 years ago
If you cannot find that then you're very bad at looking.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Not really...people deceive themselves into believing that they would be what they are today without the influence of religion. It is simply not true. It was the Judeo-Christian philosophy that underpinned our legal system.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Oh really. So if you were born in another country with no christianity you wouldn't know how to behave?
Or..let's imagine you being born thousands of years before any of these modern religions (there are MANY)..you wouldn't know how to behave?
Sheesh. Read a bit psychology, a lot of what being human is hardwired. It has to be, and without it we wouldn't survived this long.
Commonsense and religion does very rarely mix.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago 2
Maybe not in your mind, but you don't really understand the nature of Christianity.
Has there ever been a culture discovered that did not have a concept of god or gods in it?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
What nature of christianity? You cannot even agree among yourselves! Ask several priest what they think of this and that piece and you'll get different answers.
This is also why there are tons of denominations. And tons of differerent religions. And they all change with time, moving along with the moral zeitgeist of the time. In some cases because they have.. if the bible was software then it is very old, outdated an buggy.. why doesn't god author the book himself? Maybe because he is invented!
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
I would freely admit that todays society is what it is DESPITE religion, not because of religion. Religion has always tried to hamper any furthering of intelligence. Just remember, people who thought the world was round, or that it was not the center of the universe were considered heretics and put to death. Yet these people spoke out. So yes, religion has had a huge influence on humanity, but I believe the world would be better off without it.
Madjacker08 2 years ago 4
LIes, all of it. What's it like being a zombie, Commontrashjones?
kern0099 2 years ago
Wrong, that's a canard that has been the relgious' central claim for centuries, as they attempt to pillage the worls. Ethics are a pagan's invention, made by the people who denied the gods. Law isn't dependant on religion either, so don't go there unless you want to be known as a liar twice. Socratic imperatives demand that you crack a real book and drop the fairytales.
kern0099 2 years ago
Jesus was no political activist. I never heard of him at any political rally.
tebinthehouse 2 years ago
Is the Religious Lobby Ethical? - NO!
TalladegaTom 2 years ago
Absolutely ethical and necessary.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Necessary for the decline of an empire. Every time an empire becomes a religious state, it crumbles.
village1diot 2 years ago 2
@village1diot
We are not a religious state. We are a country of religious people. We want our government to respect our values and hear our concerns.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you lie. You don't want Govt to "respect" your values and concerns, you want Govt to implement them, hence the lobbying. The Constitution was written to protect people from the influence of religion...that is what non-establishment actually means.
Yakslipper 2 years ago 2
No, it does NOT. The government has been imposing morals and values since the beginning. This has always been a country found on a concept of God. If you don't like it, too bad. Go somewhere else.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you keep lying. Please quote the exact section from the constitution that mentions a nation "found on a concept of God."? And no weasling. No duplicity. Just the quote. Asshole.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper
I never said it was in the Constitution. It is the Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution.
Insults only show your lack of intelligence.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - the DOI has zero status in law...surely someone with your superior intelligence would know that. You should also know that the word "God" was not mentioned in the DOI. So, having Govt "respect your values and concerns" amounts to no more than an assertion on your part to have your religious worldview influence Govt policy. That is unconstitutional - the fact that you know it, yet persist, makes you a liar in terms of your dishonest intent.
And you're still an asshole.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper - I never said it had a status in law. I was speaking about the foundation of our country. It was approved in July 1776. It declared the "WHY?" our country should exist. It was not until September 1787, more than ten years later, that we had our Constitution.
There is nothing unconstitutional about individuals of similar views coming together to lobby congress. Unions do it. Environmental groups do it. Old people do it.
Again insults just show your lack of intelligence.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
You are weasling. The US explicitly excluded religion from the Constitution to protect different crackpot religious groups FROM EACH OTHER! And you are duplicitous - by using your religious worldview to influence Govt policy you are acting unconstitutionallybecauser, by definition, if you succeed you are inserting religion into the political arena and contravening the non-establishment clause.
The fact that you remain an asshole is not without evidence.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper You are wrong on so many counts. By your thinking, only atheists should be allowed to influence the government because they have no religion. Religion is woven into the very fabric of our country. The Government cannot establish a specific religion nor can it restrict the FREE exercise thereof. There is NOTHING about being free from the influence of religion. You can be godless and be American but America is built on the concept of God. Learn to live with it.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - not at all. But it isn't free speech we are arguing about...it is your intent to infliuence law for the benefit of your beliefs. That's what you lie about. Freedom FROM religion means exactly that. Freedom FOR religion means you can practice what you want. It's a subtle difference that you clearly don't understand or respect. The constitution is clear, even if you don't like or accept it. Claiming America is built on God doesn't make it true.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper I don't know where you learn English, but freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. I respect the difference, as did the founding fathers who prayed for God's wisdom when writing the Constitution.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - the US was not founded on the DOI, it was founded on the constitution. The DOI expressed the rationale for being independent of British rule - that was awkward because the British monarch claimed divine provenance. That explains the religious wording in the DOI, even though the word "God" was not written. If the "concept of God" was so important, why was it explicity omitted from the foundational document?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper When did our country begin? Why was the DOI adopted by the Continental Congress? Did our nation NOT exist for the eleven years it took to written the Constitution?
Actually, the word "God" is in DOI "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Don't take it so hard, you are a victim.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - "Nature's God" "Creator" - wow, I didn't realize how strongly stated this was!!! The US "began" when the constution was ratified by the signing states. Before then there was no United States...or do you think there was a United States before then? What was it called? Your founding document - the constitution - was explicit about not endorsing religion. I think you need to accept that and get over it.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Now you are just grasping at straws. Even a 5th graded knows our nation began in 1776. It took over a decade to writing and have the Constitution ratified. It does not talk about religion because the government is suppose to LEAVE IT ALONE.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - I'm not the one lying about my intentions...you are. You want to claim special privilege for the place of religious influence in US Govt...I'm pointing out why that is not allowed under the constitution. You disagree but can't explain why. But let's put that aside. Why don't you tell us what you would want Govt to change as a result of Govt "respecting your values and hearing your concerns"? That should tell us how duplicitous you really are.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Where have I ever claim a "special privilege"? All I have said it that there is nothing wrong with religious people lobbying the government. It is you who have claim, incorrectly, that it violates the Constitution.
What would I want to change about the government? Lots of things - our policy on dealing with the poor, abortion, family and marriage issues as well. Did you think I wanted the government to make you go to church? Every American has the right to lobby Congress.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - "poor, abortion, family and marriage " - No. Those are the issues. What do you want changed?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Issues are what people lobby about. I am not sure what changes you are speaking of? Are you referring to structural changes?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - so do you want to expand access to publicly funded abortion? Legalize gay marriage? Just trying to figure out whether you are wanting to impose iron-age morality on the rest of us.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Neither! I would outlaw abortion and never support gay marriage. Call it what you want, but supporting the murder of unborn children does not make you sophisticated, just evil.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - it's really all about using your iron age religious beliefs as a means of influencing Govt to pass laws that affect how everyone else lives their lives? We could get into a debate about whether, and at one point, abortion is reasonable but you might hit me with the unanswerable (and completely unprovable) "soul" argument and we hit a dead end. Why the perverse interest in legislating against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Another biblical issue?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Regardless of what you think about "iron age" morals and values, we are just as entitled to try to influence our government as much as you with your lack of any morals or values. The issue of abortion is not about the "soul". It is simply about when does life have value. There is no disagreement as to when life begins, only as to when does child have rights.
I have no interest in what goes on in a person's bedroom as long as it stays there. Marriage is off limits.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - on what basis do you decide when (and whose) life has value? On what basis is marriage "off-limits"?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper I don't, the individual's actions determine that. If someone takes another person's life, he or she should forfeit there own life. However, an unborn child has committed no act or crime deserving of death. They have unfortunately been conceived by a woman who values her convenience over their life.
As for marriage, there is absolutely no value added to society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage is between a man and woman. It always has.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - on what basis have you arrived at these positions? Are these religious teachings that you subscribe to...or do you just hold these opinions to be true? Throughout history black people have always been subjected to predjuduce and discriminating behavior - the bible supported this - but we now know how wrong this is. The fact that some people (you) see some significance in historical precedence for hetero marriage doesn't make it right. On what basis do you claim you are right?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Several sources have determined my morals and values. The Bible, properly understood, is the principle source.
Slavery has existed for centuries and was not exclusive to blacks. In fact, blacks themselves practiced slavery. The Bible did not support it, but regulated it. There is a significant difference. As for marriage, there is a reason that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman for so long. It is benefits society to promote THAT relationship.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - here's the problem. When you use the Bible as a moral source of any kind you have to go through contortions to explain away the (for example) exhortations to own slaves, stone adulterers etc. Using that as the basis for imposing your "moral framework" on a secular culture is flat out objectionable. We could both agree that reducing abortions (for example) is highly desirable, but using a biblical basis for determining illegality is using religion to control society - theocracy!
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper There is no problem. Religion has been the foundation of our laws since the beginning of our nation. There is no need for contortions in understanding the Bible. For example, stoning adulterers was acceptable at the time because they were violating God's Law which they agreed to follow. No one is suggesting we stone adulterers today because we are NOT a theocracy as Israel was.
Is your problem with morality in general or with Biblical morality?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - on what basis do you amend what the bible explicitly commands to suit modern times? Is the bible your source for morality concerning gay marriage? It seems you are saying that we don't stone adulterers because our secular morality knows it is wrong. If that is so, we couldn't be more in agreement.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper I don't amend what the Bible says. I take the time to understand what the Bible says. We don't stone adulterers today because that is not part of our civil law. Under the Law of Moses, it was part of the civil law for a reason. God was building a nation from a slave people and obedience was paramount.
No, the Bible is not my source for opposing gay marriage. It is wrong on every level, moral, social, and even a public health standpoint.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - when the bible demands that adulterers be stoned how much time does it take you to understand that? And are you saying that god accepted that moral standard in the past but not now, or is it more likely our secular values helped us realize how stupid the bible really was?
I guess you don't like gays. By what right do you feel able to legislate against their equality? Sounds like you are happy to sit in judgment of their behavior, even when it has no effect on you.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper It appears that we have strayed from the subject at hand to your issues with Christianity. First, I understand it. It is you who do not understand it. Do you even have any idea WHY it was a capital offense? You cannot take a text out of its proper context and expect to understand it.
What equality? Marriage has never been defined by sexual orientation. Should bisexuals get to marry two people? Should pedophiles get to marry a child? Marriage is what it is.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you understand it? I'm open to the explanation.
Asking erroneous questions based on false analogies is a classic strawman. What right do you claim to prevent their equal treatment given that no "crime" is being committed by permitting their marriage? What are you afraid of for which you claim the right of law to protect you?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Yes, I do, but I don't think you want to understand it. When the hung horse thieves in the old west, there was a reason behind it. A horse was not a pet but an essential part of their livelihood. You have to look at things in their context.
Homosexuals have equal treatment under the law. They are free to marry anyone they want so long as they meet the legal requirements. It is that simple. They want to redefine marriage completely for absolutely no benefit to society.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - we understand it the same way...women (for it was they who were stoned) were chattal. Now, where in the bible does the contextual explanation come?
Homosexuals do not have equal treatment. They cannot protect their assets, they are subject to unequal treatment in the tax laws. Tell me, who would be the victim of the crime of them marrying? It would be of no benefit to you (or I) should gay marriage be legal, but it would correct descriminatory behavior.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Actually, both the man and the woman were stoned if caught. The context is both a different time, different place, and God was doing something different in the world. The Jewish people agreed to obey the laws God gave them. They knew the punishment for breaking them. Therefore the punishment was just and moral.
As for homosexuals, they are treated no different than others who do qualify for marriage. It is not a question of anything being a crime.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - and you know god was doing something different in the world? How? Punishment isn't just and moral just because you know the consequences someone arbitrarily sets for breaking a law. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper The Bible is about God's relationship with Mankind from the beginning. What He commanded at one point is not necessarily valid at another time with different people. If I know the law and agree with it, then the punishment is just and moral. There is nothing arbitrary about it. God explained the law to the people and they accepted it with all the blessings and consequences. I know you don't understand it because you don't believe in God. Not to worry, He still believe in you.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you are right, I don't believe there's a god. The contortions you put yourself through to rationalize the unacceptability of your god's commandments reveals the paucity of your argument. The fact that you and I know that some behavior is wrong iustrates the complete irrelevance of anything you might claim on his behalf. That's why lobbying from that perspective is with the intent of imposing your religious will on others.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper There are no contortions. Properly understanding the Bible requires the same effort as understanding any written document. There is nothing unacceptable about God's commands when you understand them.
No one imposing their will on anyone. Lobbying is legal and every American is entitled to do it, regardless of perspective. You cannot exclude a group of people because they have religious convictions.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@Yakslipper There is really no such a thing as "gay" marriage because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a specific legal, emotional, moral, and social commitment between a man and a woman that we promote with recognition because it serve a compelling state interest to do so.
Marriage has never been defined by sexual preference. While some restrictions have changed, the basic definition has always been the same.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you're ducking the issue. The fact that you don't like the idea of gay marriage doesn't make it wrong. Marriage is a purely human construct. There is no such thing as marriage "by definition." No individual has the right to demonize and deny the lifestyle choices of anyone. Please specify to victims of the crime of gay marriage, assuming you want to criminilize those who take vows in defiance of your homophobic law.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Actually, it is you who are "ducking". You are trying to make the issue about me. We all know how marriage is and has been defined. The mere fact that one must say "gay" marriage proves my point.
I would not be criminalizing anything. Gay people can make vows to each other. They simply will not be recognized by the government as a legal marriage. Two straights can do the same but if they don't follow the law, their's will not be legal either.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - we refer to "gay" marriage simply because this group has marriage denied to them, not because it invalidates the idea of union. You've proved nothing other than your prejudice. The fact that you want to enshrine this prejudice...along with a whle series of other prejudices that arise from your religious convictions...as a legal framework for everyone is presumptious and arrogant. A bit like claiming god "believes" in me - phew, really comforted by that!!
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper They were never qualified for marriage because they choose a relationship that excluded them. You call me names and make accusations because you have nothing to offer.
Regardless of whether you think it is "presumptuous or arrogant" does not matter. My right to lobby my government is still me right regardless. Someday, I hope you understand, but that is up to you.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - of course it's your right to lobby. I just point out that you lie about your intent, and your intent is unconstitutional. Pointing out your hypocrisy regarding executing criminals whilst claiming right to life is just part of the process. That you believe you have the right to define how others should live their lives despite it being of zero consequence to you is the logical outcome of the contortions you put yourself through because of your imaginary friend.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Neither my intent nor my action are not unconstitutional, which is the point of this conversation. There is no hypocrisy between supporting capital punishment and opposing abortion. When someone kills another individual, their actions have consequences. An unborn child has not done a single thing to deserve death.
I have not defined how others should live their lives. I only oppose them redefining marriage for a social agenda. How do you know their is zero consequence to me?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you believe individuals choose to be gay?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper I believe we all choose to engage in behavior, whether sexual or not. The idea that we are born with a sexual "orientation" is a myth. Individuals who have functioned normally as a heterosexual, getting married and having children, who then suddenly find that they are "gay" make my point. Feelings are not objective. A pedophile can claim he is born that way, but it is his actions that matter.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - please provide one shred of scientific evidence that being gay is a choice. Stating so emphatically that "we are born with sexual orientation is a myth" is a statement of gross ignorance and poor education and carries zero weight. It simply reveals the extent of your confirmation bias. Oh, and your homophobic prejudice.
It will only take science to discover a foetal test for being gay for religious wackjobs like you to support abortion. Cheap property in Uganda I've heard.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper It is you who have to prove it is not a choice, not me. Good luck with that because there is no genetic or physiological difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is all based on subjective feelings, not objective evidence.
Actually, a test showing an unborn child to be gay would be your problem not mine. Would you still support a woman's right to an abortion if the sole reason was the child would be gay?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - easy for you to hide behind propositions you make without evidence. There is already growing evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality - you can start with Bearman and Bruckner in 2002. Of course I don't expect you to read it, even less understand it, but it is there.
Your abortion conditions make no sense in my mind at all. You just stated your opposition without defining any criteria at all. Just wondering whether your hatred of gays trumps your opposition to abortion?
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Oh, I understand it. The study had no conclusive evidence because there is none. It is all subjective and based on feelings, not facts. In writing about that and other "studies", one person said, "there has not yet been determined any single cause which determines whether orientation will be towards the same or opposite sex". The reason is that they are attempting to prove something that does not exist. We choose to do what we do.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - no you don't understand it at all. You argue from ignorance. There may turn out to be multiple "causes" at the genetic level. How about quoting me the scientific study that supports your proposition? Good luck.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper How do I prove the obvious? Do you not choose to engage in a behavior? Are gay people without self-will now? They choose to engage in homosexuality. This is a fact. There motives or reasons to do so are not objective and cannot be tested or verified.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@Yakslipper It is a simply question. If we ever find the "gay" gene, and can test for it prior to birth, would you STILL support a woman's right to an abortion solely because the child would be gay? I still would not support abortion because it is still murder regardless of one's motivation.
I don't hate gay people. I do not approve of their lifestyle, their behavior, but I don't hate them. The problem is they hate themselves. This is why they have 4 times the rate of suicide.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - the conditions under which I support abortion are not changed by sexuality. It sounds like your opposition isn't either - we can agree on something, but for completely different reasons. High rates of suicide aren't evidence for self-hatred - you must be careful not to project your own biases when making such blanket statement. There is a strong correlation between persecution and suicide...you might not hate gays, but you are happy to deny them equal rights.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper Actually, the higher rates of suicide exist even in countries where homosexuality has been generally accepted for decades. They also have a higher rate of drug and alcohol abuses and physical violence against their partners. There is no reason to promote such a relationship with the benefits of marriage.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe - you are assuming correlation is the same as causation. It's always best to remember that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data". The fact that you can't find a shred of credible research evidence to support your assertion clearly illutrates this. I was always taught to be wary of people who spoke with such certainty from a position of ignorance - I don't know why your comments brought that to mind. You speak in generalizations...that's all you ever do. It keeps it simple.
Yakslipper 2 years ago
@Yakslipper I am assuming nothing. I am simply stating facts. Homosexuals have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate of suicide, substance abuse, and domestic violence. They probably greater health problems as well but it is not politically correct or feasible to try to do a long term study. They have a reduced life expectancy. All of this means that the government should not be promoting such a relationship with the benefits of marriage. What is wrong with simple if it is the truth.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago