100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Redykeulous
|
|
|
Currently the effects of the law (Citizens United)is focused on what some are calling the "buy out" of our political processes. At the moments the dominant issue is our election process and the lack of consideration given to the voice of the general public by political leaders.
There are however, other considerations as to how Citizens United can effect labor laws and civil rights issues. Specifically, if an organization/business, whether for profit or nonprofit, is considered a person and the organization is headed by religious affiliations - can those organizations (as individuals per Citizens United) discriminate effectively against the civil rights of the individuals it employs and serves? Let's discuss. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought some might find this article interesting so I looked up this older thread as the vehicle of choice.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/27-4 Published on Monday, February 27, 2012 by Common Dreams Contagion and the Conflict Between Religious Beliefs and Immunization by Bill Moyers Steven Soderbergh's recent film Contagion is the most plausible experience of a global pandemic plague you're likely to see until the real thing strikes. Stark, beautiful in its own terrifying way, and all too believable, the story tracks the swift progress of a deadly airborne virus... from Hong Kong to Minneapolis... Tokyo to London... from a handful of peanuts to a credit card to the cough of strangers on a subway. Rarely does a film issue such an inescapable invitation to think, "It could happen. That could be us. What would I do? Perhaps because the movie had invaded my head, for several days I kept coming across stories in the news about contagious disease. And the conflict between religious beliefs and immunization. Nothing new here about the basics: All fifty states require some specific vaccinations for kids. Yet all of them grant exemptions for medical reasons - say, for a child with cancer. Almost all of them grant religious exemptions. And 20 states allow exemptions for personal, moral, or other beliefs. Some parents still fear a link between vaccinations and autism, a possibility science has largely debunked. Some parents just want to be in charge of what's put into their children's bodies. And some parents just don't trust science, period. So, you can see there are many loopholes. But now seven states are considering legislation to make it even easier for mothers and fathers to spare their children from vaccinations, especially on religious grounds. In Oregon, according to a story by Jennifer Anderson in The Portland Tribune, the number of kindergartners with religious exemptions is up from 3.7 percent to 5.6 percent in just four years, and continuing to rise. This has public health officials clicking their calculators and keeping their eye on what's called "herd immunity." A certain number of any population group needs to have been vaccinated to maintain the ability of the whole population -- "the herd" -- to resist the spread of a disease. Ms. Anderson offers the example of what in my day was called "the German measles" -- rubella. All it takes are five unvaccinated kids in a class of 25 for the herd immunity to break down, creating an opportunity for the disease to spread to younger siblings and to other medically vulnerable people who can't be vaccinated. If you were traveling to Europe between 2009 and 2011, you may remember warnings about the huge outbreak of measles there -- brought on by a "failure to vaccinate susceptible populations." Here in the U.S., several recent outbreaks of measles, have been traced to pockets of unvaccinated children in states that allow personal belief exemptions. The Reuters news service reports 13 confirmed cases of measles in central Indiana. Two of them were people who showed up for the Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Patriot and Giants fans back east have been alerted. So far, no news is good news. But this is serious business, made more so by complacency. My generation remembers when measles killed. Killed at as many as 500 people a year before we started vaccinating against them in 1963. My wife and I both lost grandparents in the great flu pandemic of 1918 that killed as many as forty million globally. Our generation was also stalked by small pox, polio, and whooping cough before there were vaccinations. In a country where few remember those diseases, it's easy to think, "What's to worry?" But as the movie so forcefully and hauntingly reminds us, the earth is now flat. Seven billion people live on it, and our human herd moves on a conveyer belt of constant mobility, so that a virus can travel as swiftly as a voice from one cell phone to another. When and if a contagion strikes, we can't count on divine intervention to spare us. That's when you want a darn good scientist in a research lab. We'll need all the help we can get from knowledge and her offspring. For all its many qualities, including some fine acting, Contagion was frozen out of the Oscars -- not a single nomination. In fact, none of my favorites were nominated. Nonetheless, let's go to the movies for some insights on our politics today, because when it comes to storytelling, Hollywood and Washington are co-dependents. Political conspiracies, skullduggery, and infighting have long provided solid plotlines for moviemakers. In turn, politicians try to embrace the values that movies depict as the noblest virtues of the American character: selfless courage, patriotism, sincerity and compassion. Both know that movie entertainment informs our image of what leaders should be but at the very same time capably and handily distracts us from certain grim truths. Bill Moyers Essay: Are Immunization Exemptions Fair to All? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When life begins is not even important. What potential the group of cells has is unimportant. For a moment lets take a look at another aspect of life and how our legal system has adapted to fit with our lives and make the best of bad situations. If you are rendered in a coma with no brain functions, your family can decide to remove life support. If you develop a mental disorder and can no longer be responsible for your own actions then either your family or the state must take responsibility. No where in our system are rights defined by potential, or by the vague notions of what life is, or is not. Capability; characteristics of mind; functioning cognition; ability to be responsible are universally the criteria by which law interacts with a person and their rights. The law and rights are dependent on the ability to understand right from wrong, and until a person can do these things there rights and legal authority is displaced to a guardian. Here is the kicker, a group of cells that have not developed the pattern recognition ability cannot even be said to sense things, no less the ability to assume control of rights, express rights, or IMHO have rights. When this issue is argued its always from the perspective of babies. But this is inaccurate. A 4 week old fetus is not a baby. A 6 week old fetus is not a baby. ~ 60 days is needed for the development to even begin to be baby like. However we still miss the link between rights and responsibility. The law should be rational. It should not allow us to end the life of a brain injured person and not a fetus with no functioning brain. These are seen as different due to subjective potential, objectively the situations are no different. A person with a moral responsibility is being asked to carry a burden for another being, and those seeking to change this law are saying this burden carrier cannot act legally and responsibly to arbitrate the situation as they see fit. More and more people ask the government to be the responsible party. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. The more responsibility we shuffle off on to the government the less freedom we have, the less responsibility we have, and no expectations can be set. I am pro choice, but if I was in a situation in my current pay bracket, with my current life I would not get an abortion. I would be responsible, and I would take that responsibility seriously, but if the law removed that responsibility from me, then what would that leave me with? It would make me the guardian of this child by force. I would not be free to choose my life. I would not be free to choose to be a father, it would be forced on me. Reproductive rights are essential to liberty, to responsibility and to remove the possibility of resentment of a government that controls every aspect of our lives. Giving the government this power is a slippery slope of epic proportions. Once a right is removed it is almost never redeemed. Also once the government has that right, a faceless entity then gets to use your reproductive rights for what it sees fit. Scared? You should be. Good post, many valid points and espesially about our need to maintain liberty and freedom by taking as much responsibility for it and likewise allowing others to be just responsible. There are just some things that should never be in the control of government and how we attend to the matter of procreation is one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 02/27/12 11:29 AM
|
|
This topic is meant to parse out what things can be true or false. It is common to hold that statements can be true or false. It is also common to say that not all statements can be. For example... "The earth orbits the sun" is either true or false. "This sentence is false" is neither true, nor false. The difference between the two is that the former makes a claim about the world, whereas the latter is self-referencial and therefore is utterly meaningless. That should do to get things going, hopefully. The forum looks rather dead-like lately... Truth and false is beyond statements. Take illusions for example, we see what is not true. Hearing, hunters use calls to mimic targeted animals, what that animal hears is not true. The hunter is attempting to decieve not to be true or false. In this case if the call brings out the desired prey then the call was valid and it did what it was meant to do and truth had nothing to do with it. If one attempts to argue that the call must have have been true or it would not have brought the prey, then we have a paradox because the call was meant to deceive which would have to be labeled false in keeping with using true false. But if it is false, the prey would not have been fooled - right? Valid and not valid seem to work better in some cases. I think, but I always seem to miss the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rights end where anothers begins my disagreement is probably one of the main reasons for the variance in opinion whether or not another life constitutes a strict issue of one persons privacy, or whether that life has similar 'personhood' to be protected I understand that many people have different ideas regarding when life begins and when the the laws pertaining to personhood apply to the unborn. Even in some court cases litigation has taken place on behalf of an unborn injured party. These are certainly points of controversy, but those points should not be made outside the judicial system. To amend, or add to the law requires that steps be taken within the legal system. At this point, those who don't like the law, as it stands, are not taking their grievance up with the legal system, they are imposing thier own kind of discriminatory sanctions against all women. That kind of discrinatory behavior violates the social contract which allows us to feel safe and secure in our surroundings. It just seems to me that we need to address all the issues but until they are addressed we still need to comply with the law as it stands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In these discussions there tends to be a lot of views which stray from the real problem.
The fact is that a woman’s right to privacy and due process, as outlined in the Constitution and interpreted through many Supreme court cases, includes the right of women (and men) to self-determined procreative choices. Any attempt of the States to undermine legal abortions can have only one result – all such attempts must also remove a woman’s right to privacy and due process. We have seen this trend increasing for several years with the absurdity of encroachments upon women’s rights becoming more and more obvious. Along with the other areas in which women continue to battle inequality, this current trend against a woman’s procreative choice has increasingly been seen as an attack on women. AND IT IS. What I see goes beyond the simple attack on half the population – what I see is the lack of connection between the people and the social contract. Our social contract includes a respect for the choice that people make regarding their religious beliefs and values. Another value, we have placed in our social contract, is that all freedom, liberty, & rights, of individuals must necessarily include some limitation. The test that determines the limitation also determines the point at which ones freedom exists at the cost of another person’s freedom. That is where the limitation is drawn. When we begin ascribing belief systems into the values of our social contract, we are no longer subscribing to a contract that values civil and social equality through the ideals of liberty and freedom for all. Our social contract declares that people have the right to privacy in sensitive personal matters, and the highest court systems in our land have agreed that this privacy extends to matters of procreative choice. Such privacy does not exclude men, they have access to birth control and aids for sexual dysfunction, without hindrance. Whether one agrees with the statements I’ve just made or not – thousands do agree and we see it in the current trend we are calling an attack on women’s rights. So intent are some people to force their belief systems onto society that they go so far as attempting to declare personhood at conception and/or to enforce civil rights for the unborn. How can we possibly consider those options when we have NO RIGHT under our current social contract to infringe on the privacy of women (or men) in matters of procreative choice? We are not even suppose to know these intimate facts unless the person confides them to us. When a woman confides to a doctor that she thinks she’s pregnant and the doctor confirms it – IT IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. What action the woman takes is HER CHOICE and becomes a PRIVATE medical and contractual matter between herself and the medical staff who she has chosen for medical attention. Professional medical staff operates under laws that are meant to uphold privacy and privilege of the doctor/patient relationship. Right now women must be able to understand the value of having a social contract and need to protect it, partially because it is women’s right that are currently in the forefront, but unless we protect our rights by supporting the values of our social contract, any infringement on our rights will escalate into uncertain rights for any and everyone. This is not a fight about when life begins – that fight is about whether abortion is even legal. That battle has been fought and if needs to be addressed again, then it needs to be addressed in conjunction with the courts and our social contract. Until someone has a case worth presenting in opposition to that law, then we have to proceed in accordance with the law and stop trying to undermine it using discriminatory means. In fact, what we are fighting now is blatant discrimination and disregard for our legal rights of privacy. If you don’t agree please explain your point of view because I certainly can’t see these current events any other way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 02/26/12 08:39 AM
|
|
I Agree, let it be a state issue left to voters,,,,if it has to be an issue at all,,, This would not be a problem at all IF the laws being voted on were not a matter of U.S. Constitutional concern. The U.S. Constitution as defined and explained by the judiciary system must determines what 'issues' states can address on popular vote. In other words, no state make laws by popular vote that enfringe on the freedoms and liberties thar guaranteed under the Constitution. That has been the premise of this battle over marraige equality. It was not the fact that states could define marriage, but that the federal government had done so with DOMA. This is what the courts have recently been declaring unconstitutional. During this whole process, the corts have also declared that cases involving discrimination of homosexuals are subject to heightened scrutiny, which meant that homosexuals are now considered a minority entitled to the same Constitutional protections of other classes of minorities. When DOMA is no longer the barrier it is today, then the battle will take a new turn. The question will then become -- Can the laws that would blatently discriminate against a minority class be put to a popular vote? If homosexuals are defined by the judiciary as a minority class, they join the ranks of other minority classes; ethnicity, race, women, handicapped ... and they are protected from being singled out or segregated by any state law, and even any Constitutional law unless there is extenuating government interst involved. Thus, no popular vote can be taken at any level which would result in the discrimination of any or all minority classes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting perspectives,,,, the only problem I see is that once you say a government entity, whether federal or state, should not have the legal right to define marriage one way or the other,,, it makes it hard to justify ANY requirements whatsoever in this paragraph alone "But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law. " you could easily replace 'same sex' marriage with, incestuous, or minor , or any other description of any potential relationship which people may raise children together in,,,, Yes, but that has always been the case, in that, states have the right to make laws that define marriage for that particular state. In fact, if one compares and contrasts the marriage laws from state to state it would be noted that some stats allow marriages of first cousins while other states require three degrees of separation (third cousins). Some states struggled with the idea of marraige between half-siblings. Changes in adoptions laws which required that adopted children be allowd access to their birth history was partially a responce to strick marriage laws against siblings. Proof of the "degree of separation" was required in some states in order to issue a marriage license. Utah allowed polygamy and there was such an uproar in other states that they passed laws (which would never stand up in courts today) to guard against it in their state and would even prosecute those who practiced polygamy in state. What finally happened is that one of the conditions of Utah becoming a state required that they abolish the acceptance and practice of polygamy. Today we regognize how illegal that was, and that's why Utah, from time to time (including right now) has allowed those unions to exist and has even considered legalizing them again. And they have the right to do that. The point is, that no matter how any state defines marriage for thier own purposes/interests, ALL of those marriages must be granted all the same treatment under federal law, because federal law must respect the marraiges from every state. Definition of marriage is out of federal control becasue federal law applys to all the people regardless of state and local laws. When it comes to defining marriage, every state must consider the impact of those laws not only on its budget but they must also be weighed against U.S. Constitutional law, which is constently changing. Can any of the people affected by these laws be considered a protected class as defined by any sources of Constitutional law (Supreme Court cases). There is currently a large volume of case precedent in the Supreme courts which define homosexuals as a protected class, that's why judges are saying that discrimination claims by homosexuals must be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Whether there would ever be a time that polygomists, siblings, cousins and in-laws could fall under the definition of protected class does remain to be seen. Obviously we can't forsee the future and all laws must be flexible in order to accommodate broad changes in social values and attitudes. When we consider how long it took for this country to accept interracial marriage, and integration of African Americans and at least a similar amount of time for homosexuals to come as far as they have, then we have to expect further changes to states marriage laws could be a long way off. But change occurs and we have to face issues as they come up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There have been several cases heard in the lower, district Supreme Courts: I’ve condensed the main points of three of those cases below. Portions of the articles appear at the end.
I think the main points are: DOMA (at the least section 3) has been declared unconstitutional at the lower ‘district’ supreme courts Among the reasons: DOMA should be considered under the more critical heightened scrutiny measure and also noted - that several courts have found that the provision would not even pass the more deferential rational basis test. Because “neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.” Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. the federal law’s definition of marriage — one man and one woman — violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ (or any other state) marriage licenses differently than others. DOMA violates the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth is that the 10th Amendment prevents Congress from defining marriage, a right that the states held until 1996. But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law. Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. So where we are now is: The Federal Supreme Court has thus far refused to take up any of the cases pertaining to DOMA. Many such cases are still in litigation and moving their way up the Court chain. There are now enough cases in which Federal judges have ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional to allow the Supreme Court to take up any one of these cases and simply agree with the precedent already set – in other words they no longer have to be the bad guys, they can simply agree with the lower courts. If the Supreme Court upholds the precedent then DOMA will be considered an illegal law. On the face of it, the federal government simply was not allowed to define marriage, that right belongs to the Commonwealth (states). Also, because the federal government cannot discriminate in its laws, same-sex couples who are married legally in any state, must have the same protections and responsibilities as any other married couple. If (when) that happens, same-sex married couples will be free to move from state to state, or job to job, knowing that they will receive the same treatment as any other married couple. I’m uncertain about the restrictions that same-sex couples might encounter in state to state moves. For example, every state currently recognizes marriages & divorces & adoptions from every other state. I don’t know how far some states would go in refusing to recognize SS marriages & families and how much legal leeway they have to adhere to such open discrimination under federal law. If a particular state then refused to issue a marriage license only to same-sex couples who have been married by another state, then I believe that too will make many appearances in supreme courts. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some states would go so far as to NOT recognize any other marriages or divorces that have not been sanctioned within that state. That would mean that every marriage and adoption would require a new license in order to be considered legal in that state for the purposes of accessing state programs (including adoption and divorces). It could happen, but whether heterosexual couples approve of SS marriage or not, I don’t think heterosexual couples will stand still while their own marriages & families are discriminated against. Breaking: California district court rules DOMA unconstitutional Feb 23, 2012 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/page/2/ By Jacob Combs … Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California struck down DOMA in the case Golinski v. OPM. Judge White determined that DOMA should be considered under the more critical heightened scrutiny measure (as the Justice Department recommended last year), but also noted that several courts have found that the provision would not even pass the more deferential rational basis test. In his decision, Judge White wrote: ”The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.” Today’s decision is significant because it joins Judge Joseph Tauro’s joint decisions in the 2010 cases Massachusetts v. HHS and Gill v. OPM striking down DOMA in Massachusetts district court. That case is now on appeal in the First Circuit, and it is likely that today’s decision will be appealed in the Ninth Circuit. --I’ve added info below about the cases mentioned in the last paragraph.---- US Federal Judge In Massachusetts Rules Part of DOMA Is Unconstitutional July 8, 2010 by Robert Cruickshank A federal judge in Massachusetts just ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law passed in 1996 that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage and enables states to withhold recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, is unconstitutional. The ruling in the cases, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, does not strike down DOMA in its entirety. But what it does appear to do is to remove the ban on the federal government’s recognition of same-sex marriage. In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage — one man and one woman — violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Adam Bink at Open Left offers the key section from Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth: This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid. In other words, Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth is that the 10th Amendment prevents Congress from defining marriage, a right that the states held until 1996. It should be noted that there is considerable precedent, including Loving v. Virginia, giving the US Supreme Court the right to overturn bans on certain kinds of marriage, so this case should not be construed to limit the federal courts’ ability to provide for marriage equality. The other suit, Gill v. OPM, further establishes that Section 3 of DOMA was passed with discriminatory intent and is invalid. The outcome of that suit would appear to mandate that the federal government provide benefits to couples in a same-sex marriage that is sanctioned by the state. UPDATE 2: More from Judge Tauro’s decision: But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law. Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 02/20/12 05:16 AM
|
|
Before I answer, I cannot, of course, speak for each religion. Nor know if there are any clear-cut answers to these questions specified; however, this is my perception of relation to cause and effect from a religious stand point. However, as they've stated previously, I'm oblivious to any religious texts' meaning.. so. EVERYONE PLEASE ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BELOW BY Compare please what book of Islam say to what book of Christian say to what book of Jews say about - How should we get to know and be friends with people from other countries? If the people in a Christian country no more have clean water, what do the books say that Islam and Jewish countries should do? If the people in a Buddhist country no more have food for the children, what do the books say that Islam and Jewish and Christian should do? If a plague strikes many countries and only your country has way to help, what does your book say you should do? The Bible says, Jesus says, and almost every religion I know of all speaks of this in the same manner though words it differently: Every man, who finds themselves, more fortunate than others; has an OBLIGATION to aid those less fortunate. Whether this is sickness, weaker, poorer, or otherwise. Jesus, or maybe it was just God himself stated: "If a man finds himself in a place where he has the power to help someone of sickness, he should do so. If a wealthy man finds someone poor, and suffering; he should spread his wealth." Some actual quotes, stating such that I know off hand are: (Note the numbers may be off, and I'm too lazy to look them up. >.> Deuteronomy 15:7, 11 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. Deuteronomy 24:14 Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns Leviticus 23:22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. Psalm 12:5 Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the LORD, I will protect them from those who malign them Psalm 37:25-26 I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed. Psalm 41:1-2 Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes. Psalm 112:9 He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor, his righteousness endures forever; his horn [a] will be lifted high in honor. With those said. It is my HONEST OPINION, that you will find NO OTHER passages quite as clear cut as these: Proverbs 11:24-25 One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed. Proverbs 14:21 He who despises his neighbor sins,but blessed is he who is kind to the needy. Proverbs 14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 19:17 He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done. THEN THINK - What have people done in the past, what do we do today? All God's saints, the most charitable of all, are passing from this world. Princess Diana. (She may be an opinionated matter however) Mother Theresa. Joe Paterno. (Donated triple digit millions) ..the list could go on, but I'll stick to just a few. Whether in a small community, the entire world, or just a country itself. There impact has almost been dissolved and their intentions seem nearly forgotten. This world once said, 'It's a dog eat dog world'. But now it's common practice. Compared to what was, to now what is. There is and has been hardly any improvements, in fact, it's been the opposite and that downward slope is becoming a regular teaching. Atheists don't (or so I believe) teach their children about God. Christians don't (or so I believe) teach their children to question God. But should. I'm not saying Christians should make their children atheists, however, I do believe that if Christians permitted their children, while they are children, to question God openly, and truthfully; and you answer these doubts and questions as honestly as you can.. ..it would forever make a huge impact on their adult years. Granted, they may still become atheists, or vice versa; but it doesn't increase the chances, I think it would lower them, if anything. You can raise an atheist child to have the morals and principles, heavily revered by God; and still not believe in 'God'. That there, that fact alone, would make this world slowly turn face. No matter what changes, it will be at a slow pace. But it should be one we are ALL willing to work towards. Despite race, despite color, despite religious heritage. If we all truly want the world to be better. Tear down these pathetic and pointless walls we've created that have divided us. God, nor man, nor even our own f***ing constitution promotes that ANY man is of less value in any regards in any respect. Do we do this? No. Can we do this? Yes. ..I try to do it.. I'm not perfect, nowhere close. ..but imperfections are what make us different. It is by our imperfections that, truth in fact, make us perfect. ..but that's just my opinion. Take it, leave it, laugh at it. ..but I want change. I want my son to grow up in a world. Free from all this hate, greed, and petty BS. I want him to live, love, have his heart broken, but have the resolve and desire to get up and ride again. Everything in life is a risk. Everything in life is a battle. ...but it doesn't have to be like this. God, or whatever you believe that created this place.. ..or whether we just 'appeared' from the sun's fart.. Our path was never supposed to have been filled with so many obstacles, traps, and bloodshed. Tears, pain, sorrow.. They exist, because we feel all of their opposites. Smiles, joy, and happiness.. If you know where to look.. Even during the worst of storms.. Somewhere.. ..you'll find a rainbow. The beauty in the darkness. That's my piece. THANK YOU This is what I have heard the Christian Bible and the Tora teach. Is it different in Islam? How can we teach each other what we believe if we do not care what each other believes? Before I can know what you believe, you must tell me and I must not judge you. Before you can know what I believe, you must listen and not judge. Then we will know each other and then will understand what we have in common that makes us friends. We can not be enemies when we do not know each other, we can only be hateful and hurt people because they are different from us. We should listen, trade what we know and learn about each other without judgement. So speak and remember to listen, and keep trying to find the key to living together on this planet in peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok a quick summary, just to see if I have it right. No, you did not get it wright. You got it horribly wrong. You also did not summarize my points; you quoted (inaccurately) some points that have been closed, and then you made some claims that do not hold water. This was NOT a summary which you called a summary. And I claim that you got it quite, quite off, not at all right. "Wux has stated in several different ways that the Bible does not offer a single solution to the question “When does life begin?” " No, this question never even surfaced. I never stated it any way, different or same, when life begins. I stated, however, very clearly, that humanness begins at birth according to the bible. A cat is alive, but christians do not attribute any humanness to a cat. A fetus is alive, but it is not alive the same way as a child. A child's killing is murder; the killing of a fetus is remedied and the sin involved gets absolved with a fine paid to the father. Some of your other examples have alreadey been discussed (I know it's a long thread to go through), and each of them were meticulously shown why they must be dismissied. Please read Page 6 and page 7 for the answers to those issues which you raise now. Please read those pages. The wordings in the books are provided, not just referenced. Such important misquotations that sway the entire argument as you used, for example, in Jeremiah 1:5, it is pointed out that God knew jeremiah before he was conceived; and it is not the same as jeremiah was alive before he was conceived. Please think about it. The psalms you quote were dismissed by way of placing a bet with anyone who wants to pick me up on it, and the bet was: find any fetus for me, which can speak, and not only a word or two, but these fetuses in their mommies' tummies can say complete, complex sentences as "you knit me in my mothers womb", etc. This is a farce, not a fact. You can call it fairytale, but if you say that some fetuses actually sang those lines in Psalm 139, then I bet you any amount of money to bring forth evidence of your hearing fetuses sing. Judah and Tamar's tale... you are drawing inferences so far and wide, that it is bordering the Redykeulous to use it as an argument. Because Tamar carried Judah's baby, and Judah reversed her death sentence is not a statement by god against abortion, but a statement by god that Judah had wanted that child to be born. The two are not at all equivalent. For instance, both Juday and God knew, and now I know, and now you are learning, that if Judah had decided to kill the mother and the fetus, then for the killing of the fetus he would have needed to pay a fine to himself. For killing Tamar, he would have thrown into the eternal hellfire for committing a capital sin. "Hosea 13:16 Here is an example of how God values the unborn. What else is there to assume? God decided that the Samaritans should be punished and as one of the punishments he ordered that the pregnant women should be ripped open and their unborn be dashed." I don't understand how anyone could ever use this to prove that god loves unborn children, or fetuses. So thanks for this tip, and support, tamar. I mean, REdycoulous. God ordered that the unborn children be dashed. Then they were dashed. End of story. Good point, REdy, thansk for the support, if and only if you qoted or referenced the bible story right. I don't want others to say "no, Redy quoted it wrong." This point has been discussed, the Numbers quote, and I don't want to open another debate just for this. REdddy joined late in the discussion, after things seemed to have been settled and agreed on. But like you said, REddy, if nobody of the dashers were punished, that's because they just followed god's order. God ordered this to happen. Where is the love of God to fetuses in His getting them ripped out of their mommies' tummies, and get them dashed? Tough love? Jesus Almighty. Thanks, REddy, but more thanks would be forthcoming for exact quotes. Something like this does not stand up in an argument, and I would not use it, either, for that very reason. If the exact quote was given that'd be a totally different ballgame. Think, Redycoulus. Bot don't let your emotions alone guide you, when the brain's other function are needed to be involved. I am just saying this now because I say it to everyone. It's a boiler-plate stamp now in this topic. The question among us, forum users, is not who supports abortion and who does not. The question is, does Jesus forbid abortions. The answer to that is that the bible does not condone abortions, but once one has been performed, then it's not a MURDER, but something similar in the order of magnitude in sins as not putting money into a parking meter: the offender of the misdemeanor, in both cases, the case of the parking infraction, and in the case of the abortion, the punishment is a fine. After the fine for the abortion is paid, the sin is absolved. This is what the bible says, and I stop here. I won't ask you if you are pro-life or pro-aboriton. I won't say if I am pro-life or pro-abortion. I am saying only, and this is the entire claim, that the bible allows abortions, and the absolution for this misdemeanor can be paid for by paying a fine. This is the thing. And please do be very careful in quoting people, and the bible. For instance, I quite resent that you equated life with the notion of humanness. Yes, the fetus has life, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, but the fetus LACKS HUMANNESS, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. This is the word of god. It has nothing to do with my opinion or with yours, when life starts. This topic is about what the Bible says, what god says. And God says, make an abortion, pay a fine, and everything is cool again. THIS is in the bible. Read the book, if you don't believe me. I am not making this up. Well there's plenty of evidense there to explain why I could never be a Christian --- I just can't get it RIGHT. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok a quick summary, just to see if I have it right.
The question of abortion is not a question of murder/kill until the question of “when does life begin” is answered. According to a few passages in the bible, for example Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5, life begins in the mind of God, long before the sequential events that bring an egg and sperm together. This becomes problematic as we continue to read the bible. One of the problems with believing that life begins in the mind of God is how pregnant women and children are treated in other biblical text beginning with Genesis 38. Short version of the story is that Judah had promised Tamar that he would give her to his son Shelah in marriage. There were reasons, at the time, for which Tamar wanted to extend her line with that of Judah’s. Anyway, when Judah did not fulfill his promise, Tamar disguised herself and sold her services to Judah in the hope she would become pregnant with the line she desired. THEN, Judah DID give Tamar to Shelah. A few months later, Judah was told that Tamar was pregnant through prostitution. What did Judah say? ““Bring her out and have her burned to death!” She was able to prove to Judah that he was, himself, the father. At that point Judah decided that it was ok to let Tamar and her child live. And now that she was Shelah’s wife, Judah “did not sleep with her again” Sounds like that was more important than considering the destruction of a fetus. The child was irrelevant, it was only the shame of Judah that allowed Tamar to live. Hosea 13:16 Here is an example of how God values the unborn. What else is there to assume? God decided that the Samaritans should be punished and as one of the punishments he ordered that the pregnant women should be ripped open and their unborn be dashed. Numbers 31: God’s vengeance upon the Midianites It is ordered that among those to be killed are any woman who has slept with a man. Would that not include many who are pregnant (regardless of how far along in the pregnancy they might be?) Another type of issue in the pre-existence idea is the compromising of free will. There are some verses that are used to prove pre-existence and those verses indicate that God had a plan for the pre-born and of course the plan came to pass. That’s problematic for those who believe that we are free to make our own choices. If we pre-exist by design to fulfill a pre-destined outcome, where are the choices. Wux has stated in several different ways that the Bible does not offer a single solution to the question “When does life begin?” So the only option is for each person to use their own power to think logically with all the information possible to make a personal decision about the question. Using only the bible to draw conclusions, it is logical to believe that life is either pre-existent and thus pre-ordained which demolishes the belief that we have free will. Or, that life is not pre-existent but given the various ways that the pre-born are considered to be irrelevant, we would have to conclude that the value we give to humans outside the womb is not the value they have within it. Of course there is always the option of looking outside the Bible for further information. And that is exactly why we have allowed women the freedom to make a choice UP TO a certain point in their pregnancy or in other extenuating circumstances. In order to take the option of free will and free choice, one must think for himself and not because the Bible alone had guided the conclusion. For those who accept that option, then it must be acknowledged that the option to think for one self is relevant because it is not always possible to draw conclusions from passages in the Bible. Makes sense to me, and thanks Wux for the clarity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Open Letter to Congress
|
|
How can we not admire the complexity of thought made so utterly transparent in simply words?
The OP is both a reminder of a sad state of affairs and the idealism that remains alive in optimism. That an ideal remains alive in the mind means there must be the potential of reaching it. First we must allow the potential behind every voice to be developed with constrainment of the bias of others. Then there must be a forum in which the voices will be heard and the wisdom of all experience taken for the benefit of the common good. Let the common good not exclude the people of the world in favor of the few in one country. That too is a founding view and perhaps it was that view which have given this country the greatest pool of diversity of thought from which to choose its wisdom. Yet we have lost the main components of original ideals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 02/18/12 06:16 AM
|
|
If a person's head is buried in a single book for too long, the bound edges of the book can become blinders. If we do this to a child, are we not limiting that child's freedom? If the path before you is all that you can see, because the blinders of a book do not allow you see a view from either side, then are not your choices limited? we are to read the Bible all our life, b'cos it's our living guide. beside, it's has not brought harm to any society. all it teaches us is Love, Tolerance, Forgiveness amoungs others... why don't people want to see the good side of it. It's call goodnews and everything about that book is good and moral if you want a child go grow up and not constitute nuisance in the society teach the child the Bible. Do you not have to apply what the learn from the book to what is happening in your world? How can you do that when the book does not give examples of how to think about things that are not spoken of in the book? EVERYONE PLEASE ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BELOW BY Compare please what book of Islam say to what book of Christian say to what book of Jews say about - How should we get to know and be friends with people from other countries? If the people in a Christian country no more have clean water, what do the books say that Islam and Jewish countries should do? If the people in a Buddhist country no more have food for the children, what do the books say that Islam and Jewish and Christian should do? If a plague strikes many countries and only your country has way to help, what does your book say you should do? THEN THINK - What have people done in the past, what do we do today? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a person's head is buried in a single book for too long, the bound edges of the book can become blinders. 1. If we do this to a child, are we not limiting that child's freedom? 2. If the path before you is all that you can see, because the blinders of a book do not allow you see a view from either side, then are not your choices limited? 1. Yes, I agree. I think it should be handled more like the Amish handle their children. Allow them the opportunity to see 'outside the book' for a while. If that life style is for you, return to it. Forcing a child to see nothing but white will only ultimately be counter-productive, and they will seek the black that much more. It's basic science. 2. Agreed again. That's how I was until event A lead to reaction B and downfall C which caused D, E, and F to come into the picture. Ultimately, it led to the destruction of said 'blinders'. Now I am what types before you. I say again. I do not question the existence of 'something greater than ourselves'. I question our perception of that entity. I think it it that way for people who feel safe in their freedom. When there is no fear people question more things if they can step away from the blinders to explore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a person's head is buried in a single book for too long, the bound edges of the book can become blinders.
If we do this to a child, are we not limiting that child's freedom? If the path before you is all that you can see, because the blinders of a book do not allow you see a view from either side, then are not your choices limited? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High gas prices cause the shipping of EVERYTHING to rise.. Do you realize we have a MASSIVE trade deficit? You think all those container ships run on electric power? What about the trucks that haul the crap from the ports? They run on electric? You want gas prices to rise so the poor people you always talk about have to pay more for basic necessities so you can win some agenda points? What a twisted ideology.. Do you have a clue what the rest of the world is going through. Do you realize that we have caused the vast majority of this suffering? What kind twisted ideology makes the people of one country believe they have a right to world dominance and all the spoils of that dominance that gives them MORE than the harm we have cause by our self-absorbed, egotistical beliefs and actions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Islam is the name of love and humaity.and you are just do sex with animls.lesbian.gay......its your socity Radical is a word that can be assigned to anything that a person or group thinks is extreme. People grow up learning what they need to know in order to fit in with their society. Many people are never taught by their society to give each person the freedom to be different. Different may mean being radical in thought, but if the behavior (the actions) of a person toward others is respectful at all times then we all get along. What does it mean to be respectful? That every human born has value. Is there a religious belief that does not believe that? Is there an athiest that does not believe that? The value of every human is that each life has the potential to touch other humans to make them better people. We all make judgments about others, but our behaviors (words and actions) must not come from those judgments. How we act toward others must come from the most important belief we should have - that every human has value and deserves our respect. There are times we must defend against great harm, but even when we harm others in defense of our lives and freedom, we must not do so with hatred but with sorrow that we are forced to harm something of value. Any religion that does not teach that to their young and follow it as adults is, in my opinion, a radical religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 02/16/12 10:48 PM
|
|
As a nation we certainly hold the lions share of citizens who are self-absorbed, ignorant, and those who are just plain in denial.
What is the amount of our national reserve oil - anyone know? Of course it may not seem like much given the amount we need to supply the militerey complex that is hell bent on it's vision of world dominance. If the world is in crisis, then why not regroup, withdraw, and concentrate on the crisis in our own country. If we must make a showing of our megalithic militaristic toys, why not simply protect our OWN shores and do some greatly needed house cleaning? There are more than a few 'things' that need to be swept out of the halls of Congress. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/16-3 Published on Thursday, February 16, 2012 by Common Dreams Transcanada Pushes Eminent Domain for Its Tar Sands Pipeline GOP senators plan to hold Federal Oil Reserve hostage to KXL approval; Nobel laureates rally against tar sands in EU - Common Dreams staff Senators Take Emergency Oil Reserve Hostage to Force Keystone Approval Think Progress reports today: Republican Congressional leaders have failed to force President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. But that’s not stopping them from trying over and over again, taking hostages in the process. First they used the payroll tax cut extension as a vehicle to force a decision on the pipeline in sixty days, even before the final route was identified. President Obama was forced to disapprove the permit because there was no time to assess its potential pollution. This week, several senators took a different hostage: our emergency oil supply. On February 13, Senators David Vitter (R-LA), John Hoevan (R-ND), and Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the Strategic Petroleum Supplies Act, S. 2100 that would prevent President Obama from selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless Keystone is approved: “the Administration shall not authorize a sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve… until the date on which all permits necessary … for the Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) have been issued.” In other words, unless the president approves Keystone, he cannot sell our emergency oil — even if Iran causes an oil supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a hurricane or other disaster disables oil production or refining facilities, or any other type of event causes gasoline prices to soar above $4 per gallon. If any of these events happen, middle class Americans would pay significantly higher gasoline pump prices, giving billions of dollars more to big oil companies that made record profits last year. Nobel winners urge EU leaders to back tar sands law Reuters reports: A group of Nobel peace prize winners urged European leaders in a letter on Thursday to support an EU Commission proposal to class fuel from oil sands as highly polluting. "Tar sand development is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and threatens the health of the planet," eight Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, said in the letter. "As the tar sands have contributed to rising emissions, Canada recently stepped away from the Kyoto Protocol. Europe must not follow in Canada's footsteps." Environmentalists say there is growing scientific evidence that oil sands crude is more carbon-intensive than oil from other sources and that a shift to greener forms of energy should avert the need to extract every last drop of oil. EU officials are expected to vote on February 23 on a draft law in an amendment to its fuel quality directive that includes tar sands in a ranking to enable fuel suppliers to identify the most carbon-intensive options. I hope gas prices exceed expectations becasue that will mean that Obama did not cower in the face of blackmail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It all makes perfect sense to me. After all that flag doesn't seem to mean much anymore. It may as well be used as the crowning send off of what has become the kind of icon that the American public can actually wrap it's atrophied brains around.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
