Author Topic: WWJVF? (Read 937 times)

m-g Willy · « **on:** October 25, 2004, 07:25:58 PM »

Who Would Jesus Vote For? This say's it all. When you vote,would you vote the same if Jesus was right there watching?-- BTW--We all WILL get to answer to Christ on why we voted the way we do some day.--Willy

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2004, 07:57:30 AM »

I don't believe that Jesus would vote.

FrankCommes · « **Reply #2 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:28:57 AM »

Jesus had 0 interest in government politics. In case you have not noticed, their is religious freedom here in America.

dukkillr · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2004, 09:01:42 AM »

well that's not entirely true... for instance if we elect a president who's religion causes him to believe abortion is wrong, and he then uses that moral frame to make decisions ultimately outlawing abortion then what if my religious/moral beliefs are pro-choice? of course the answer to that is that the president's religious beliefs have deprived me of my own, differing belief.

believe what you want, but don't force me to believe what you do.

beware of those who wish to codify their religious/moral beliefs for everyone.

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2004, 09:25:59 AM »

What if Congress passes a bill outlawing abortion or the Supreme Court reverses Roe vs Wade? I must remind you that abortion was once illegal and could be so again. I don't think that abortion has anything to do with religious freedom. Neither is it a right outlined in the Constitution. It was merely a court decision based on interpretation.

Now,if you want to worship bullfrogs on Thursdays, THAT'S your RIGHT.

dukkillr · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2004, 10:20:04 AM »

well then what if i wanted to have 2 wives (as several religions do)? politics and religion are always going to be inter-related that's simply fact. My only point was to beware fo those who would legislate their religious/moral beliefs to the exclusion of other contradictory beliefs.

It does become an issue with abortion because most people make their decision about abortion based on when they believe life begins. Of course most people come to their conclusion about when life begins by looking to their faith, or lack thereof. Congress could not outlaw abortion today if they wanted to, nor could the president. Roe v Wade established abortion as a right in this country, granted by the constitution. I only brought it up as an example of an area where leaders in this country tend to impose their morals on those who may not share that belief.

If you allow abortion to be a decision made by each individual based on their own set of religious/moral beliefs then you're "pro-choice". "Pro-life" people believe that their assessment of morality and when life begins should trump any other contrary belief and thus seek to remove the ability for someone to come to a different conclusion about when life begins than they did.

i suggest that each person concentrate on their own life, and allow me to make my own decisions as to what is moral, or right, and (in the instance of abortion) when life begins. you may think my decisions are immoral, you may think i'm going to hell, but give me the opportunity to make those choices anyway... THAT'S what FREEDOM OF RELIGION is all about.

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 27, 2004, 12:11:35 PM »

There is actually a scientifically defined point where life begins. It is not open to debate. Now you may have your own opinion as to where life begins, but if it does not fit the defined point, it is just that...opinion.

As for marriage, if we allow everyone to define marriage so as to fit their individual idea of marriage..........well, any thinking person can see where that would lead.

Just what is it that you want, dukkillr? Are our laws cramping your style?

dukkillr · « **Reply #7 on:** October 27, 2004, 12:55:47 PM »

this is not a personal debate about me, i'm not pro-abortion, but rather, pro-choice. I'm not pro-polygamy either. what I espousing is a freedom of personal beliefs over legislated beliefs of others.

my guess is that I have two more science degrees than you and i'm confident i've spent more time working with aborted fetuses than you (i ran a surgical pathology lab and a morgue for 2 years). I believe I have more experience in the area than most. If you would like a debate about life and viability and so forth thats fine, but it's not the point. the point is that I should be free to choose for myself what my morals are, and what they aren't, especially with something so personal.

look, this site is full of "keep the government out of my life" people. Most gun owners believe in the autonomy of an individual when it comes to other issues (several recently attacked me for claiming the branch dividians were crazy) but they can't grant that same autonomy when it comes to the things they disagree with (abortion in this current debate). Where's the consistency? Where's the freedom of (or FROM) religion?

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 27, 2004, 01:18:20 PM »

I don't see what you are getting at. Just who is stopping you from being immoral? The government? The churches? My goodness, man, every day brings us closer to the point of anarchy in this country. You must understand that there can be NO FREEDOM without laws. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is usually drawn at the point where your freedom endangers, offends or inconveniences another. That's why we have speed limits, bag limits and limits on other activities that may offend or endanger. We call it civilization.

dukkillr · « **Reply #9 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:01:47 PM »

yeah, here's where it's going... Someone above said that "In case you have not noticed, their (sp) is religious freedom here in America." My point is that at times some leaders will try to legislate their religion. My point was stated, "believe what you want, but don't force me to believe what you do. beware of those who wish to codify their religious/morlal beliefs for everyone."

I'm not supporting anarchy at all, certain laws are almost universally agreed upon, including the ones you listed. There are other issues that are less agreed upon, including abortion. In the cases where there is no clear national consensus I advocate allowing each and every citizen to make their own decision as it impacts their life. I simply don't understand why the government should make the decision for me. I'm capable, educated, and I prefer to make these types of decisions for myself. What's wrong with that?

I guess in one sentence i'd say, "Don't force your religion on me."

mikek · « **Reply #10 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:22:27 PM »

Quote from: dukkillr

I guess in one sentence i'd say, "Don't force your religion on me."

Mr Dukkillr, I am not attacking on this but you brought up a point I have been trying to get answered for a while... I keep hearing the "don't force your religion on me" line from many college students. I am not aware of any religion issues forced onto the public... in fact I see people of faith having rights taken from them so as not to offend the tiny minority i.e. no prayer before a game for one family complained and threatened suit and etc. I am aware that evolution was pulled from high school curricullum in some schools but other than the one example where are rights being infringed. Trust me, I am the biggest heathen out there yet I call it how it is and I see religious rights being afflicted far more than the opposite. And personally, as I see religion desolve I see morals of young Americans go down the tubes.

dukkillr · « **Reply #11 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:52:52 PM »

i agree with you actually, prayer in school has become a spectacle. i wish people could just be tolerant of other's beliefs. I'm not trying ban anything, including prayer in school. I want people to have the right to choose what to believe for themselves.

here in kansas the religious nut jobs took evolution out of schools... now here's my point from the start, when you take evolution out of schools you've forced your religion (creationism) on others. for those poor students who intend to go on to college they'll be behind, and for those who don't they'll never be exposed to a major source of knowledge. I don't particularly care if you don't believe in evolution but i do care that you want to exclude anyone else from coming to a different point of view.

do you see where i'm going here? it isn't about taking religion out of anything, but rather about allowing people to make their own decisions. You see almost the same argument with sex ed in school. Some people believe less knowledge is somehow better because they don't want those kids to have sex. I advocate presenting all the information about abstinence, birth control, diseases, etc... and then allowing those individuals to make their own decisions, and know they are making those decisions with all the available knowledge.

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:43:49 PM »

Re "I advocate presenting all the information about abstinence, birth control, diseases, etc... and then allowing those individuals to make their own decisions, and know they are making those decisions with all the available knowledge."

You would allow these young children to make their own decisions?

Were you taught these Ideas in school/college or did you come up with them all by yourself? Dukkillr, you are a wonderful example of what is wrong with our country, today. I feel sorry for you, but even more, I feel sorry for America.

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:00:10 AM »

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

dukkillr · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2004, 05:32:37 AM »

on the contrary, i would present the information to kids at an age when they need to know it... say 16. they're old enough to drive, studies show they're having sex at that age... obviously if they're having sex they need to know what risks they're taking and how those risks can be avoided and/or minimized.

i'm glad you think i'm what's wrong with this country... thanks for being so judgmental. you have no idea what i'm doing in my life, you have no idea what i have already done, and you're confortable making that statement.

i support personal responsibility and the right to make decisions for yourself. apparently that makes me "what's wrong with this country".

crazyjjk · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2004, 06:00:19 AM »

Quote from: Loader 3009

Re "I advocate presenting all the information about abstinence, birth control, diseases, etc... and then allowing those individuals to make their own decisions, and know they are making those decisions with all the available knowledge."

You would allow these young children to make their own decisions?

Were you taught these Ideas in school/college or did you come up with them all by yourself? Dukkillr, you are a wonderful example of what is wrong with our country, today. I feel sorry for you, but even more, I feel sorry for America.

How would they be making their own decisions? If their parents have strong religious beliefs their thinking would also be guiding these children.

Loader how do you feel about the "hunting is bad talk in the schools or guns are bad talk" should not the children as you call them be given all the facts not just the bad facts. You can use your argument to defend this also.

What is wrong in this world is the suppression of knowledge buy the narrowminded. What is wrong in this world is parents not taking the time to help their children with the knowledge they learn and wanting the schools to censure knowledge from their kids because of it. There is nothing liberal or wrong with Dukkillr's thinking. It is your thinking that is flawed and liberal in allowing censorship to take the place of parenting.

dukkillr · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:00:47 AM »

thanks for the support... and incidentally i would have no objection to allowing parents to choose not to allow their children to learn about birth control in schools... i am fully aware that until age 18 parents have every right to decide what they want they're kids exposed to. my problem is that by banning sex ed in schools NOBODY has a chance to become more knowlegable, and believing that they simply won't have sex if they're not exposed to information about protection is completely and totally wrong.

dukkillr · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2004, 11:21:31 AM »

here's one for you loader 3009:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:1

compare with, "Dukkillr, you are a wonderful example of what is wrong with our country, today. I feel sorry for you, but even more, I feel sorry for America." - Loader 3009

mjbgalt · « **Reply #18 on:** October 28, 2004, 01:07:40 PM »

what dukkillr says makes sense. he is basically talking about Libertarianism, which is the forefather to Republicanism, without all the lawyers and fancy words and huge government bodies.

i agree with most of what he is saying, he is advocating true freedom, and total freedom. freedom never hurt anyone, and the "lets have freedom but only so much so i still control things" attitude that some people have makes me sick.

-Matt

Loader 3009 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2004, 12:05:07 AM »

I don't believe that Jesus would vote Libertarian, either. :-D What some of you fellows advocate is more "libertine" than Libertarian.

Why did the Libertarian cross the road?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....to start his own country.

As for "freedom never hurting anyone", check out the local mental instutions and prisons. Ask the families of the victims of "too much freedom". You see, guys, some people just cannot handle freedom. Because of these people, we have laws.

mjbgalt · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2004, 03:29:24 AM »

you make my point exactly, Loader. we all deserve total freedom and when one of us breaks one of the RARE and very important societal laws in that system we would be put in jail or an institution IMMEDIATELY.

and the rest of us would continue to be totally free, as no one should be held back by the actions of another.

i liked your joke...pretty funny.

i just dont like it when someone tears down another persons point of view or opinion and assumes its not thought through. i was simply pointing out that what someone thinks is dangerous or too simple, can be a well-articulated political position.

i still dont understand it...are we free or are we not? if we are free, anything goes that does no harm to another. if we are NOT free then why pretend we are and brag about our democracy? when ANY politician makes a law "giving" us the right to carry, or "gives" us the right to own a certain kind of gun or to do anything at all, he or she is saying "well here you go, heres a little freedom for the serfs who pay my salary."

instead of our government "giving" us some rights and making the rest of reality off limits, it should be the opposite. we should be allowed to do almost anything we want with our own lives, time, and money, while only a select few things are off limits, such as homocide, certain white collar crimes, and assault. when it begins to affect others' freedom, then we should be punished. immediately. not locked away for years and given 500 appeals.

thats the only thing i dont like about our system. i love my country and i would die for her if asked to. but i hate the stuffed suits in washington who have elevated themselves to the status of gods and they hand out some pittance to the masses, in the form of allowing us some freedom they think we didnt have before.

-Matt