So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.
My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."
I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.
I, for one, would be outright tickled to death if there was no mention of any deities in ANY of the political parties.
You know, I wonder how God feels about the Republicans dropping his name all over the place. I mean, I don't recall Him ever publicly endorsing the Republicans. On the other hand though, if He wasn't fine with them namedropping, surely He would have said something, right?
Are Party Platform planks and even the National Convention even needed in this day & age?
You know both candidates aren't expousing every single platform planks... so, why bother?
In the internet age and the ease of grassroot compaigns, is the National Convention even needed? It seems to be an expensive party for those who's already decided to vote for their guy... seems wasteful.
As to the OP d-usa: I'd no problem with keeping religion off the platforms... maybe a small blurb to ensure "freedom of religion", but that's all.
whembly wrote: Are Party Platform planks and even the National Convention even needed in this day & age?
You know both candidates aren't expousing every single platform planks... so, why bother?
In the internet age and the ease of grassroot compaigns, is the National Convention even needed? It seems to be an expensive party for those who's already decided to vote for their guy... seems wasteful.
As to the OP d-usa: I'd no problem with keeping religion off the platforms... maybe a small blurb to ensure "freedom of religion", but that's all.
not to mention that politics has become heavily candidate centered in the past two decades or so, the role of parties is starting to diminish a great dea;
It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"
I appreciate that one of the parties, in at least one venue, chooses not to repeatedly harp on about a God whom I don't worship. The concept that in most parts of the country you have to be (or pretend to be) a Christian for people to vote for you is disheartening and discomfiting.
d-usa wrote: It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
I am left feeling somewhat uneasy at the thought that people dictating public policies would genuinely believe that I will (and should) suffer in torment for eternity for my lack of believing in their god or gods. Strikes me as though it could potentially cause one to have a hard time remaining objective.
d-usa wrote: It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
As a deeply religious Evangelical Christian I can honestly say: Yes they should be.
I also realize that at least in these parts I am somewhat of a minority when it comes to that though...
d-usa wrote: It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
As a deeply religious Evangelical Christian I can honestly say: Yes they should be.
I also realize that at least in these parts I am somewhat of a minority when it comes to that though...
Honestly I think politics would be better if the state and church were separate.
Whenever someone shouts their faith constantly in a political speach it sounds a lot more like tribalism than faith to me.
While the Republicans have been bad about that for a long time, in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith.
Cheesecat wrote: Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
Yes. But people should also be interested in the nature of the political debate in their country, and what concepts and words are being used by politicians to court votes.
sebster wrote: Whenever someone shouts their faith constantly in a political speach it sounds a lot more like tribalism than faith to me.
While the Republicans have been bad about that for a long time, in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith.
Cheesecat wrote: Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
Yes. But people should also be interested in the nature of the political debate in their country, and what concepts and words are being used by politicians to court votes.
Yeah, but it seems that any time religion is involved it just tears people apart rather than bring each other together, just look at all the debates dakkadakka has on the topic of religion every-time one of those threads happens it gets locked due too much disagreement. Is that something we
d-usa wrote: It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
It's a nice sentiment, but it doens't really fly in the real world.
Generally, the religious beliefs of those writing the policies are going to influence said policies, and people will support whatever policies are made with those same values in mind, if the voters share those values. Religion (a seperate idea from "faith") is all about social control. Always keep that in mind.
sebster wrote: Whenever someone shouts their faith constantly in a political speach it sounds a lot more like tribalism than faith to me.
While the Republicans have been bad about that for a long time, in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith.
That's probably because polling has shown that Americans would be no more likely to vote for an atheist than they would a pedophile.
Cheesecat wrote: Yeah, but it seems that any time religion is involved it just tears people apart rather than bring each other together, just look at all the debates dakkadakka has on the topic of religion every-time one of those threads happens it gets locked due too much disagreement. Is that something we
want in our political system as well?
That's the point of the thread. Talking about whether the number of references to faith and religion currently in the political discourse is a good thing or not.
I am going to post a response that I gave to somebody that asked this question:
QUESTION ONLY FOR CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS:
I’m asking a serious question.
...How can you, as a Christian Democrat, and there are many, continue to be in a political party, sign your name to such a party, who intentionally removes God from its platform?
The opposing political platform reverences, and acknowledges God ten times. Please don’t tell me that there are so many hypocrites in the GOP; I already know this; they are everywhere!
Help me, as a Christian, to understand how this dramatic omission does not frighten you, it would me. This would be the very sign that I must make a change to being an Independent or some other party. Please, help me to understand? I’m really perplexed. Help me, dear Christian brother or sister, to understand. Are you going to make a change. You can tell me privately and I will keep your confidence.
Please keep in mind that this was my response as a "Christian Democrat" to a "Christian Republican", so I hope we can avoid the whole "Christian vs. Non-Christians" aspect of this. I realize that there is a high likelyhood of this becoming a Christians vs. Others kind of discussion, but I cross my fingers that we can at least make it a few pages before that happens.
But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:
For me it helps to think about what the central message of the Gospel really is. God creates man, man sins and becomes separated from God, God becomes man and pays our debt, man responds and accepts salvation. It was through His sacrifice that we are no longer separated from God, and without it we would not be able to have a relationship with Him.
It is the relationship we have with Him that is the most important fruit of salvation. Without salvation we could not know Him, and it is the relationship with Him that should drive our actions and it should serve as a model for our relationships with others. By extension I also believe that our actions are a result of that relationship and I don’t believe in salvation by works. Our primary responsibility as Christians to the rest of the world is to spread the Gospel with others and to use Jesus as our example of what it means to lead a God-centered life.
Which brings me to politics. I honestly feel that combining God and politics does nothing to fulfill our great commission. It does not bring people closer to Christ and it does not follow Biblical examples. I don’t have a problem at all with politicians sharing their faith and sharing what impact God made in their daily walk. Giving our testimony is an important part in sharing the Gospel. I do not agree with adding God into political platforms or using Him to justify political decisions or using Him as a basis for law. Some of the reasons for that are as follows:
Salvation is by faith, and our works are the fruit of that salvation. We do not obtain salvation by following “God’s Law”. One of the key lessons that we should take away from the Old Testament is that God gave Israel His Law, and even when God Himself told His people “don’t do that” they were unable to follow His command. From the first “don’t do that” given to Adam and Eve, mankind has been unable to follow His Law and has been a slave to sin. So one of the objections I have of legislating God’s laws is that it seems somewhat insulting to God that we think we could do better at making people follow His laws than he did. But I also believe that the central message of the Old Testament was not “just follow these Laws and go to Heaven”, but instead the message was that we could never follow the Law. In essence the book full of rules were God saying “You want to know what you would have to do for salvation? You would have to live a life without breaking a single one of these rules, but there are so many you would never be able to do it!” The message of the Old Testament was not “follow these rules”, it was “you could never follow these rules, but I will send somebody that can”. So passing laws and legislation based on these Biblical rules does nothing to accomplish our one and only goal, to spread the Gospel.
If we do legislate Biblical law and the teachings of Jesus, what have we really accomplished? Let me take gay marriage as an example. If we legislate a Biblical definition of marriage and only allow a man and a woman to get married, how does that share the Gospel? Do the husband or the bride now have a relationship with God because they have a traditional marriage? Do they have a Christ-centered marriage because we made sure that two men or two women could not get married? Did they receive Christ as their savior because a legislator with the word “God” in their platform passed a law that limited who could get married?
Does a Constitutional marriage amendment mean that people with have a relationship with God, or will it simply make them act godly without knowing God?
And that last question is really the core of why I do not want to mix politics with my faith. I fear that it makes us lazy and contempt, it allows us to take the easy way out. If we want to stop people from sinning, a task even God cannot accomplish, then we should go out there on a daily basis and interact with people to spread the Gospel and help create a nation where everybody has a relationship with God and chooses not to lead a sinful life. Or we could take the easy road that doesn’t involve confrontation and just outlaw sin which might result in people leading a life that is “godly”. But people would be leading a life that might follow the law, but without any relationship with God. So what good does it do if we pass legislation based on the Bible instead of sharing the Bible? What is the benefit of having a population that lives a godly life without ever knowing God only to die without ever hearing the Gospel because we are too busy passing laws instead of sharing Christ?
I also think that a lot of the talk out there amounts to “the nation is suffering because we are not passing Christian laws” or “if we elect Christians and pass Christian laws our nation will be blessed”. To me that just sounds like a nationalistic version of the prosperity gospel, and that is simply a gospel that I do not belief in. I also think that God would be able to tell the difference between a nation that is filled with people that have a relationship with Him, and a nation that is filled with people that follow His laws because they don’t want to go to prison.
In the end it comes down to this for me: I would rather live in a country where every sin is legal, a nation where we could live the most depraved live that we could possibly imagine without any legal consequence, and a country where people make the conscious decision to have a relationship with God and then live a Godly life that is a result of that relationship with Him. The other option would be to live in a country where sin is outlawed but people don’t have a relationship with God.
Does including God in a political platform do anything to spread the Gospel? Does including God in a political platform share His love for us? Do people suddenly have a relationship with God because we passed legislation that made a sin illegal?
Seaward wrote: That's probably because polling has shown that Americans would be no more likely to vote for an atheist than they would a pedophile.
Nah, it's just like Republicans now attempting to capture the votes of black people, Democrats are doing what they can to capture evangelical votes where they can.
Obama's concept was that you can appeal to these voters without sacrificing other Democratic values, in fact you can reframe a lot of Democratic positions in religious terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:
I think you answered it very well.
I probably would have commented on how mentioning God a handful of times in a speach doesn't actually mean anything of substance, and express disappointment at how low a price some people ask of themselves.
Seaward wrote: That's probably because polling has shown that Americans would be no more likely to vote for an atheist than they would a pedophile.
Nah, it's just like Republicans now attempting to capture the votes of black people, Democrats are doing what they can to capture evangelical votes where they can.
Obama's concept was that you can appeal to these voters without sacrificing other Democratic values, in fact you can reframe a lot of Democratic positions in religious terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:
I think you answered it very well.
I probably would have commented on how mentioning God a handful of times in a speach doesn't actually mean anything of substance, and express disappointment at how low a price some people ask of themselves.
Hell the democrats used to be the ones know for being evangelical (at least back when they were a populist party)
d-usa wrote: I am going to post a response that I gave to somebody that asked this question:
QUESTION ONLY FOR CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS:
I’m asking a serious question.
...How can you, as a Christian Democrat, and there are many, continue to be in a political party, sign your name to such a party, who intentionally removes God from its platform?
The opposing political platform reverences, and acknowledges God ten times. Please don’t tell me that there are so many hypocrites in the GOP; I already know this; they are everywhere!
Help me, as a Christian, to understand how this dramatic omission does not frighten you, it would me. This would be the very sign that I must make a change to being an Independent or some other party. Please, help me to understand? I’m really perplexed. Help me, dear Christian brother or sister, to understand. Are you going to make a change. You can tell me privately and I will keep your confidence.
Please keep in mind that this was my response as a "Christian Democrat" to a "Christian Republican", so I hope we can avoid the whole "Christian vs. Non-Christians" aspect of this. I realize that there is a high likelyhood of this becoming a Christians vs. Others kind of discussion, but I cross my fingers that we can at least make it a few pages before that happens.
But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:
For me it helps to think about what the central message of the Gospel really is. God creates man, man sins and becomes separated from God, God becomes man and pays our debt, man responds and accepts salvation. It was through His sacrifice that we are no longer separated from God, and without it we would not be able to have a relationship with Him.
It is the relationship we have with Him that is the most important fruit of salvation. Without salvation we could not know Him, and it is the relationship with Him that should drive our actions and it should serve as a model for our relationships with others. By extension I also believe that our actions are a result of that relationship and I don’t believe in salvation by works. Our primary responsibility as Christians to the rest of the world is to spread the Gospel with others and to use Jesus as our example of what it means to lead a God-centered life.
Which brings me to politics. I honestly feel that combining God and politics does nothing to fulfill our great commission. It does not bring people closer to Christ and it does not follow Biblical examples. I don’t have a problem at all with politicians sharing their faith and sharing what impact God made in their daily walk. Giving our testimony is an important part in sharing the Gospel. I do not agree with adding God into political platforms or using Him to justify political decisions or using Him as a basis for law. Some of the reasons for that are as follows:
Salvation is by faith, and our works are the fruit of that salvation. We do not obtain salvation by following “God’s Law”. One of the key lessons that we should take away from the Old Testament is that God gave Israel His Law, and even when God Himself told His people “don’t do that” they were unable to follow His command. From the first “don’t do that” given to Adam and Eve, mankind has been unable to follow His Law and has been a slave to sin. So one of the objections I have of legislating God’s laws is that it seems somewhat insulting to God that we think we could do better at making people follow His laws than he did. But I also believe that the central message of the Old Testament was not “just follow these Laws and go to Heaven”, but instead the message was that we could never follow the Law. In essence the book full of rules were God saying “You want to know what you would have to do for salvation? You would have to live a life without breaking a single one of these rules, but there are so many you would never be able to do it!” The message of the Old Testament was not “follow these rules”, it was “you could never follow these rules, but I will send somebody that can”. So passing laws and legislation based on these Biblical rules does nothing to accomplish our one and only goal, to spread the Gospel.
If we do legislate Biblical law and the teachings of Jesus, what have we really accomplished? Let me take gay marriage as an example. If we legislate a Biblical definition of marriage and only allow a man and a woman to get married, how does that share the Gospel? Do the husband or the bride now have a relationship with God because they have a traditional marriage? Do they have a Christ-centered marriage because we made sure that two men or two women could not get married? Did they receive Christ as their savior because a legislator with the word “God” in their platform passed a law that limited who could get married?
Does a Constitutional marriage amendment mean that people with have a relationship with God, or will it simply make them act godly without knowing God?
And that last question is really the core of why I do not want to mix politics with my faith. I fear that it makes us lazy and contempt, it allows us to take the easy way out. If we want to stop people from sinning, a task even God cannot accomplish, then we should go out there on a daily basis and interact with people to spread the Gospel and help create a nation where everybody has a relationship with God and chooses not to lead a sinful life. Or we could take the easy road that doesn’t involve confrontation and just outlaw sin which might result in people leading a life that is “godly”. But people would be leading a life that might follow the law, but without any relationship with God. So what good does it do if we pass legislation based on the Bible instead of sharing the Bible? What is the benefit of having a population that lives a godly life without ever knowing God only to die without ever hearing the Gospel because we are too busy passing laws instead of sharing Christ?
I also think that a lot of the talk out there amounts to “the nation is suffering because we are not passing Christian laws” or “if we elect Christians and pass Christian laws our nation will be blessed”. To me that just sounds like a nationalistic version of the prosperity gospel, and that is simply a gospel that I do not belief in. I also think that God would be able to tell the difference between a nation that is filled with people that have a relationship with Him, and a nation that is filled with people that follow His laws because they don’t want to go to prison. In the end it comes down to this for me: I would rather live in a country where every sin is legal, a nation where we could live the most depraved live that we could possibly imagine without any legal consequence, and a country where people make the conscious decision to have a relationship with God and then live a Godly life that is a result of that relationship with Him. The other option would be to live in a country where sin is outlawed but people don’t have a relationship with God.
Does including God in a political platform do anything to spread the Gospel? Does including God in a political platform share His love for us? Do people suddenly have a relationship with God because we passed legislation that made a sin illegal?
A very good reply. There exist quite a great deal of evangelical Christians in my home town, and I often get into arguments with them regarding this very thing. Leaving aside the argument of what the intention of the founding fathers was regarding Christianity in this country, the most effective argument I've employed is something along the lines of what you've used. When one attempta to force the Gospel and the morality directly derived from it on others through laws one usually only gains their hatred and enmity instead. Which, as you have noted, does nothing to actually fulfill the mission statement of the church: the salvation of souls. Forcing others to live it on the surface isn't just shallow, it's forcing others to lie.
azazel the cat wrote: Religion (a seperate idea from "faith") is all about social control. Always keep that in mind.
I disagree I've met many religious people who were open to new ideas or weren't forceful about there beliefs.
That's because they're the ones dancing; not pulling the strings.
Consider the difference between faith and religion. There's a big difference between believing in a higher power, and obeying the commands of the guy in the funny hat.
There are oddly specific rules in every holy book because religion is about holding on to power through social control. Your friends have their actions restricted by the religious institution, and thus are subject to that institution.
This seems like an incredibly myopic definition. It seems to be a definition crafted more on ones own desire to simplify a complex phenomenon, or a the very least a seemingly narrow band of experience with this thing called religion, then an honest appraisal of what religion means to human beings. I've read a lot of books that devote many pages to trying to come to an understanding on what religion is and there is very little agreement among experts in the field so when I see someone try and distil it into a snippy little one sentence aphorism it strikes me as a bit disingenuous.
Now if you had said that for some people (or even many people) it is about holding on to power through social control I would agree with you.
d-usa wrote: So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.
My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."
I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
The platform also supports government funding of abortion, and dropped historical pro Israeli language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.
Just as many care about that and the abortion language as those who decry it on the Republican side.
Platforms are stupid, but help show where the heart of radicals controlling either party are.
d-usa wrote: So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.
My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."
I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
The platform also supports government funding of abortion, and dropped historical pro Israeli language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.
Just as many care about that and the abortion language as those who decry it on the Republican side.
Platforms are stupid, but help show where the heart of radicals controlling either party are.
d-usa wrote: So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.
My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."
I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
The platform also supports government funding of abortion, and dropped historical pro Israeli language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.
Just as many care about that and the abortion language as those who decry it on the Republican side.
Platforms are stupid, but help show where the heart of radicals controlling either party are.
The draft language also included calls for substantial firerarm regulation:
The draft language of the Democrats' 2012 platform — set for a final vote this week in Charlotte, N.C. — argues that current safeguards protecting the public against gun violence are insufficient and urges "an honest and open conversation about firearms."
The document also calls for "reasonable regulation" governing guns, including laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers — not just licensed dealers — to perform background checks on potential buyers.
Frankly it strikes me as a mistake. Why would you not include an omnipotent, omniscient, supreme lord of all time and space in your platform? Sounds like somebody you want on your side to me.
d-usa wrote: So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.
My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."
I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
but have you read the republican platform? It's just insane.
we're talking about the party who's against teaching critical thinking or modern science. I guess that's so they can just continue to blatantly lie and no one would think to question them.
The party who wants a zygote to have the same rights as anyone else. So the second you're pregnant, you can go and get a SSN for the zygote so you can claim it on your taxes, retroactive til 2 weeks before conception.
the party who's against equal pay for women.
they're for global warming, and resist all efforts to address it.
But they mention god a lot so that must be a good reason to vote for them. But you'd think with the party's pro war stance, Romney could have at least mentioned the troops or veterans during the RNC.
So I guess when the republicans talk about taking the country back to when it was great, they mean before 1952. Because since 1952 every republican nominee has mentioned the troops and whatever wars they were involved in.
Lets look at this gem
Supporting our Troops, Standing By Our Heroes
"The spiritual welfare of our troops and retired service members should be a priority of our national leadership. With military suicides running at the rate of one a day, with post-service medical conditions, including addiction and mental illness, and with the financial stress and homelessness that is often related to these factors, there is an urgent need for the kind of counseling that faith-based institutions can best provide. We support rights of conscience and religious freedom for military chaplains and people of faith. A Republican Commander in Chief will protect religious independence of military chaplains and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities. We will enforce and defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Armed Forces as well as in the civilian world."
They go from addressing suicides, and end with gay marriage? Wow those gays are evil right? first they threaten all marriages everywhere and now their causing our troops to commit suicide.
The republicans really need to lose all races in 2012, maybe then, they will get a clue about what is really going on.
and just to nitpic, from 0 to 10, is not 10 times more, its just 10 more.
d-usa wrote: I am going to post a response that I gave to somebody that asked this question:
QUESTION ONLY FOR CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS:
I’m asking a serious question.
...How can you, as a Christian Democrat, and there are many, continue to be in a political party, sign your name to such a party, who intentionally removes God from its platform?
The opposing political platform reverences, and acknowledges God ten times. Please don’t tell me that there are so many hypocrites in the GOP; I already know this; they are everywhere!
Help me, as a Christian, to understand how this dramatic omission does not frighten you, it would me. This would be the very sign that I must make a change to being an Independent or some other party. Please, help me to understand? I’m really perplexed. Help me, dear Christian brother or sister, to understand. Are you going to make a change. You can tell me privately and I will keep your confidence.
Please keep in mind that this was my response as a "Christian Democrat" to a "Christian Republican", so I hope we can avoid the whole "Christian vs. Non-Christians" aspect of this. I realize that there is a high likelyhood of this becoming a Christians vs. Others kind of discussion, but I cross my fingers that we can at least make it a few pages before that happens.
But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:
For me it helps to think about what the central message of the Gospel really is. God creates man, man sins and becomes separated from God, God becomes man and pays our debt, man responds and accepts salvation. It was through His sacrifice that we are no longer separated from God, and without it we would not be able to have a relationship with Him.
It is the relationship we have with Him that is the most important fruit of salvation. Without salvation we could not know Him, and it is the relationship with Him that should drive our actions and it should serve as a model for our relationships with others. By extension I also believe that our actions are a result of that relationship and I don’t believe in salvation by works. Our primary responsibility as Christians to the rest of the world is to spread the Gospel with others and to use Jesus as our example of what it means to lead a God-centered life.
Which brings me to politics. I honestly feel that combining God and politics does nothing to fulfill our great commission. It does not bring people closer to Christ and it does not follow Biblical examples. I don’t have a problem at all with politicians sharing their faith and sharing what impact God made in their daily walk. Giving our testimony is an important part in sharing the Gospel. I do not agree with adding God into political platforms or using Him to justify political decisions or using Him as a basis for law. Some of the reasons for that are as follows:
Salvation is by faith, and our works are the fruit of that salvation. We do not obtain salvation by following “God’s Law”. One of the key lessons that we should take away from the Old Testament is that God gave Israel His Law, and even when God Himself told His people “don’t do that” they were unable to follow His command. From the first “don’t do that” given to Adam and Eve, mankind has been unable to follow His Law and has been a slave to sin. So one of the objections I have of legislating God’s laws is that it seems somewhat insulting to God that we think we could do better at making people follow His laws than he did. But I also believe that the central message of the Old Testament was not “just follow these Laws and go to Heaven”, but instead the message was that we could never follow the Law. In essence the book full of rules were God saying “You want to know what you would have to do for salvation? You would have to live a life without breaking a single one of these rules, but there are so many you would never be able to do it!” The message of the Old Testament was not “follow these rules”, it was “you could never follow these rules, but I will send somebody that can”. So passing laws and legislation based on these Biblical rules does nothing to accomplish our one and only goal, to spread the Gospel.
If we do legislate Biblical law and the teachings of Jesus, what have we really accomplished? Let me take gay marriage as an example. If we legislate a Biblical definition of marriage and only allow a man and a woman to get married, how does that share the Gospel? Do the husband or the bride now have a relationship with God because they have a traditional marriage? Do they have a Christ-centered marriage because we made sure that two men or two women could not get married? Did they receive Christ as their savior because a legislator with the word “God” in their platform passed a law that limited who could get married?
Does a Constitutional marriage amendment mean that people with have a relationship with God, or will it simply make them act godly without knowing God?
And that last question is really the core of why I do not want to mix politics with my faith. I fear that it makes us lazy and contempt, it allows us to take the easy way out. If we want to stop people from sinning, a task even God cannot accomplish, then we should go out there on a daily basis and interact with people to spread the Gospel and help create a nation where everybody has a relationship with God and chooses not to lead a sinful life. Or we could take the easy road that doesn’t involve confrontation and just outlaw sin which might result in people leading a life that is “godly”. But people would be leading a life that might follow the law, but without any relationship with God. So what good does it do if we pass legislation based on the Bible instead of sharing the Bible? What is the benefit of having a population that lives a godly life without ever knowing God only to die without ever hearing the Gospel because we are too busy passing laws instead of sharing Christ?
I also think that a lot of the talk out there amounts to “the nation is suffering because we are not passing Christian laws” or “if we elect Christians and pass Christian laws our nation will be blessed”. To me that just sounds like a nationalistic version of the prosperity gospel, and that is simply a gospel that I do not belief in. I also think that God would be able to tell the difference between a nation that is filled with people that have a relationship with Him, and a nation that is filled with people that follow His laws because they don’t want to go to prison.
In the end it comes down to this for me: I would rather live in a country where every sin is legal, a nation where we could live the most depraved live that we could possibly imagine without any legal consequence, and a country where people make the conscious decision to have a relationship with God and then live a Godly life that is a result of that relationship with Him. The other option would be to live in a country where sin is outlawed but people don’t have a relationship with God.
Does including God in a political platform do anything to spread the Gospel? Does including God in a political platform share His love for us? Do people suddenly have a relationship with God because we passed legislation that made a sin illegal?
I'm interested how your well thought out and articilate reply was received?
Cheesecat wrote:
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs?.
Sure if they could actually be seperated.
The GOP has made it an issue by constantly claiming that everything they do, say and believe is a mandate from god.
When they use god as an excuse/justification for every political action/stance they take (some of which are horribly biased, racist, hateful, self-serving and down right backwards), it is hard to ignore.
You can't discuss GOP politics without discussing their use (perversion actually) of religion in their platform, because they have repeatedly made it the focus and justification for everything they do and say.
Personally I find it hard to believe that people AREN'T concerned about it more then they are...
Considering how many of the Republican nominees that claimed god sent them to run for President, I have to wonder if god is just doing this for laughs.
Cheesecat wrote:
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs?.
Sure if they could actually be seperated.
The GOP has made it an issue by constantly claiming that everything they do, say and believe is a mandate from god.
When they use god as an excuse/justification for every political action/stance they take (some of which are horribly biased, racist, hateful, self-serving and down right backwards), it is hard to ignore.
You can't discuss GOP politics without discussing their use (perversion actually) of religion in their platform, because they have repeatedly made it the focus and justification for everything they do and say.
Personally I find it hard to believe that people AREN'T concerned about it more then they are...
But why make God an important part of you party platform in the first place? A representative democracy is supposed to represent values of the people do you think Atheists, Agnostics, religions that don't believe in God, etc might feel there views aren't being represented in the GOP if
God is important in there platform, wouldn't it make more sense to make a more neutral platform so they don't risk alienating some of the voter base and potentially losing more votes. Don't you want more votes in an election?
AgeOfEgos wrote: Regardless of party ideology--last night Deval Patrick gave a barn burner of a political speech--wow.
Agreed.
I felt bad for the guy that followed him.
Yeah, no doubt. Only thing that was good about that for the convention planners---was it allowed a respite before the First Lady's speech. Tough act to follow for anyone.
Cheesecat wrote:
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs?.
Sure if they could actually be seperated.
The GOP has made it an issue by constantly claiming that everything they do, say and believe is a mandate from god.
When they use god as an excuse/justification for every political action/stance they take (some of which are horribly biased, racist, hateful, self-serving and down right backwards), it is hard to ignore.
You can't discuss GOP politics without discussing their use (perversion actually) of religion in their platform, because they have repeatedly made it the focus and justification for everything they do and say.
Personally I find it hard to believe that people AREN'T concerned about it more then they are...
But why make God an important part of you party platform in the first place?
Why dont you ask them?
Reagardless of their answer i'm guessing it has more to do with trying to legitamise wacky ideals and scaring "good christians" into voting for you...
Cheesecat wrote:
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs?.
Sure if they could actually be seperated.
The GOP has made it an issue by constantly claiming that everything they do, say and believe is a mandate from god.
When they use god as an excuse/justification for every political action/stance they take (some of which are horribly biased, racist, hateful, self-serving and down right backwards), it is hard to ignore.
You can't discuss GOP politics without discussing their use (perversion actually) of religion in their platform, because they have repeatedly made it the focus and justification for everything they do and say.
Personally I find it hard to believe that people AREN'T concerned about it more then they are...
But why make God an important part of you party platform in the first place? A representative democracy is supposed to represent values of the people do you think Atheists, Agnostics, religions that don't believe in God, etc might feel there views aren't being represented in the GOP if
God is important in there platform, wouldn't it make more sense to make a more neutral platform so they don't risk alienating some of the voter base and potentially losing more votes. Don't you want more votes in an election?
maybe their hopeful God will smote the heretics, thus making the election much, much easier.
Oh wow... did any of you see what happened with the voting delegates? I just saw on CNN that after THREE tries LA Mayor and convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa just claims it passed when it clearly didn't. Mayor Villarigosa was stunned...
Jihadin wrote: Three tries of what?...stepped out for mailing off bill payments.
Trying to find it on CNN/Youtube... but essentially you'll need 2/3rd of the delegates to approve the new change and it was obvious that wasn't the case... so he tried to get the "votes" 3 times... bad optics. I'll post if I find it...
Seems like the RNC and the DNC have more in common that they would probably like to admit. Pushing rules and resolutions that are wanted by the establishment over objections and actual votes by the delegates.
d-usa wrote: Seems like the RNC and the DNC have more in common that they would probably like to admit. Pushing rules and resolutions that are wanted by the establishment over objections and actual votes by the delegates.
Yup... was going to say the same thing...
Does anyone think these convention are really necessary though? Seems a waste of money that can be better spent elsewhere (compaign, grassroots, ect...)
maybe their hopeful God will smote the heretics, thus making the election much, much easier.
If god existed and was in the mood to smote people deserving of his wrath I think some of the people twisting his word so blatantly in the name of christo-conservatism and committing all manner of sins themselevs would be some of the first ones smoted.
Lucky for them (unfortunately) we all know there will be no smoting...
d-usa wrote: I just have to throw this in a post somewhere:
Talking to pure idiots on facebook makes me appreciate Dakka OT and recognize it for the bastion of enlightenment that it is.
Kind of funny. I have recently (within the last year) gotten my wife to read some of the OT threads here for examples of argumentation (she teaches English) and she had similar feelings. She feels it is "geek culture" that elevates the discussions beyond the rhetoric on other sites or networks like Facebook, however some other "geek culture" sites I belong to may prove that idea to be a pretty broad brush.
whembly wrote: Oh wow... did any of you see what happened with the voting delegates? I just saw on CNN that after THREE tries LA Mayor and convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa just claims it passed when it clearly didn't. Mayor Villarigosa was stunned...
Godless commie treehuggers overruled by the party elite who realizes they might suddenly lose the election, LIVE!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: He's the forgiven sort. I sacrifice the occasional beer to him.
The young Texas mayor whose keynote speech wowed the Democratic National Convention crowd Wednesday night draws political inspiration from his mother – who is a member of a radical civil rights movement and who reportedly thinks the truth behind the Battle of the Alamo is that Texans swiped Mexico’s land.
Maria del Rosario Castro, the mother of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, said in 2010 that she grew up being told the battle was “glorious,” only to learn the so-called heroes were really “a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them.”
“But as a little girl I got the message -- we were losers,” she told New York Times Magazine. “I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”
The Alamo, then a sprawling mission for missionaries and American Indian converts, was attacked in February 1836 by Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Though historical accounts vary, Texans, including famous frontiersman Davy Crockett, fought back for 13 days only to surrender, on March 6.
The young Texas mayor whose keynote speech wowed the Democratic National Convention crowd Wednesday night draws political inspiration from his mother – who is a member of a radical civil rights movement and who reportedly thinks the truth behind the Battle of the Alamo is that Texans swiped Mexico’s land.
Maria del Rosario Castro, the mother of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, said in 2010 that she grew up being told the battle was “glorious,” only to learn the so-called heroes were really “a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them.”
“But as a little girl I got the message -- we were losers,” she told New York Times Magazine. “I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”
The Alamo, then a sprawling mission for missionaries and American Indian converts, was attacked in February 1836 by Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Though historical accounts vary, Texans, including famous frontiersman Davy Crockett, fought back for 13 days only to surrender, on March 6.
Might as well get Frazz all frazzled up.
typical San Antonio mayor. free men destroyed a dictator. Nuff said.
The young Texas mayor whose keynote speech wowed the Democratic National Convention crowd Wednesday night draws political inspiration from his mother – who is a member of a radical civil rights movement and who reportedly thinks the truth behind the Battle of the Alamo is that Texans swiped Mexico’s land.
Maria del Rosario Castro, the mother of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, said in 2010 that she grew up being told the battle was “glorious,” only to learn the so-called heroes were really “a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them.”
“But as a little girl I got the message -- we were losers,” she told New York Times Magazine. “I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”
The Alamo, then a sprawling mission for missionaries and American Indian converts, was attacked in February 1836 by Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Though historical accounts vary, Texans, including famous frontiersman Davy Crockett, fought back for 13 days only to surrender, on March 6.
Might as well get Frazz all frazzled up.
typical San Antonio mayor. free men destroyed a dictator. Nuff said.
The young Texas mayor whose keynote speech wowed the Democratic National Convention crowd Wednesday night draws political inspiration from his mother – who is a member of a radical civil rights movement and who reportedly thinks the truth behind the Battle of the Alamo is that Texans swiped Mexico’s land.
Maria del Rosario Castro, the mother of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, said in 2010 that she grew up being told the battle was “glorious,” only to learn the so-called heroes were really “a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them.”
“But as a little girl I got the message -- we were losers,” she told New York Times Magazine. “I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”
The Alamo, then a sprawling mission for missionaries and American Indian converts, was attacked in February 1836 by Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Though historical accounts vary, Texans, including famous frontiersman Davy Crockett, fought back for 13 days only to surrender, on March 6.
Might as well get Frazz all frazzled up.
typical San Antonio mayor. free men destroyed a dictator. Nuff said.
Squigsquasher wrote: Who honestly cares? Myself I think there should be a law that legal policy must not be influenced in any way by religion.
That's not really possible, though. I mean, how do you seperate a moral conviction with a religious backing, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill, from something that is purely religious?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Frankly it strikes me as a mistake. Why would you not include an omnipotent, omniscient, supreme lord of all time and space in your platform? Sounds like somebody you want on your side to me.
According to Rush Limbaugh Obama controls the weather, so it sounds like they don't need any puny Christian God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: 272 Trillion times, by a president, while in office, limited to the first four years.
Cheesecat wrote: But why make God an important part of you party platform in the first place? A representative democracy is supposed to represent values of the people do you think Atheists, Agnostics, religions that don't believe in God, etc might feel there views aren't being represented in the GOP if
God is important in there platform, wouldn't it make more sense to make a more neutral platform so they don't risk alienating some of the voter base and potentially losing more votes. Don't you want more votes in an election?
US politics aren't about broad bases, and haven't been for a while now. It's about getting enthusiasm among specific demographics aligned to your party. In 2008 the Republicans got beat because 30 million Evangelicals stayed home. The standard Republican answer to that is to say Jesus lots of times.
whembly wrote: Does anyone think these convention are really necessary though? Seems a waste of money that can be better spent elsewhere (compaign, grassroots, ect...)
It seems the conventions have become too stage managed and too professional for their own good.
I think they still are a useful place for each party to articulate their message on a public stage in a defined space and time; hopefully with some good speakers.
So how bad you think the amendment to add "God" and "Jerusalem" going to carry over. From what I understand there was a muslim contingent there not to happy about one.
Silly democrats forgetting to mention the Israeli overlords. You'd think it would be the other way around and all these other countries would be bowing down to the US so they don't get invaded.
Well I'm glad important business out of the way. Back to the regularly scheduled propaganda, which does sound great if only they'd follow through with it.
Jihadin wrote: So how bad you think the amendment to add "God" and "Jerusalem" going to carry over. From what I understand there was a muslim contingent there not to happy about one.
Looked really bad...
The RNC/Fox/whomever is going to hammer that point.
I can see the future ads:
Why are Democrats so against voter ID when they didn't even listen to their own delegates?
I wouldn't say it was a conquest so much as it was a "Mexico's government was too stupid to realize that one of the reasons so many people went to Tejas was due to the motivation of Manifest Destiny. That or they really didn't particularly care and underestimated how feisty, independent, and rebellious the immigrants were. Eventually they tried to clamp down, there was a civil war and Mexico lost, Texas didn't become a nation at first because of the slavery dilemma and so survived (sort of, the Texas national government was pretty incompetent for the most part), but was eventually accepted.
The young Texas mayor whose keynote speech wowed the Democratic National Convention crowd Wednesday night draws political inspiration from his mother – who is a member of a radical civil rights movement and who reportedly thinks the truth behind the Battle of the Alamo is that Texans swiped Mexico’s land.
Maria del Rosario Castro, the mother of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, said in 2010 that she grew up being told the battle was “glorious,” only to learn the so-called heroes were really “a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them.”
“But as a little girl I got the message -- we were losers,” she told New York Times Magazine. “I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”
The Alamo, then a sprawling mission for missionaries and American Indian converts, was attacked in February 1836 by Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Though historical accounts vary, Texans, including famous frontiersman Davy Crockett, fought back for 13 days only to surrender, on March 6.
Might as well get Frazz all frazzled up.
typical San Antonio mayor. free men destroyed a dictator. Nuff said.
I thought a bunch of land-stealing guys hid in a church and got themselves killed
Melissia wrote: I wouldn't say it was a conquest so much as it was a "Mexico's government was too stupid to realize that one of the reasons so many people went to Tejas was due to the motivation of Manifest Destiny. That or they really didn't particularly care and underestimated how feisty, independent, and rebellious the immigrants were. Eventually they tried to clamp down, there was a civil war and Mexico lost, Texas didn't become a nation at first because of the slavery dilemma and so survived (sort of, the Texas national government was pretty incompetent for the most part), but was eventually accepted.
Man I need to brush up on the history of the era... thanks!
I thought it was all Davey Crocket and Daniel Boone (not really... )
Mannahnin wrote: Warren was very good, and Clinton's rockin' it now.
Warren was a Zzzzzzzzzzzfest ...
Clinton on the other hand can still bring it... yeah, he's rocking it.
Did you watch Fluke?
She wants government to pay for her birth control and sex change operations. her. Pay for it yourself you fething loser. You give real feminists who fought for equal rights a bad rash.
Mannahnin wrote: Talk that way to your daughter sometime when she grows up, then watch what happens.
Not a problem. Its easy to teach her to not be a crybaby loser turning her supposed university program into a speaking tour. She's a media/left wing media whore.
She's a person standing up for a cause, despite getting called names by big tough guys like you and Rush Limbaugh. Good company you find yourself in, there.
Mannahnin wrote: She's a person standing up for a cause, despite getting called names by big tough guys like you and Rush Limbaugh. Good company you find yourself in, there.
What cause? I'm rich so you should have to pay for my birth control? feth that. Get a job and pay for it yourself, loser.
Your view may differ. Hey its America, everybody's got a right to flap their gums. Pass the hot dogs, lets get a beer and talk away. Beeeerrr.
Mannahnin wrote: She's a person standing up for a cause, despite getting called names by big tough guys like you and Rush Limbaugh. Good company you find yourself in, there.
What cause? I'm rich so you should have to pay for my birth control? feth that. Get a job and pay for it yourself, loser.
She's rich? I thought you called her a loser. Did you read her testimony? Did you have a lot of extra cash when you were in grad school? Seriously, if you think that she's a loser, I do not envy Connie the abuse she's no doubt in for later when she gets radical ideas like "women should have the right to make their own reproductive decisions", and you decide she's a loser too.
I read it... and yes, I could afford it in grad school (I still was dirt poor, like most students).
Look... I'll admit, I'm biased. I'm damn near deaf in both ears wearing the most powerful hearing aids one can find (yes, ma/pa bought them outright.. as in, not covered by insurance). I pay for the batteries every month about the same cost as the various BC pills. Not once have I thought that my insurance/government ought to pay for them. [ interestly, my insurancewould cover cochlear implants. ]
Another reason I dislike Obamacare is that it TAXED all medical devices (ie, hearing aids). That's a pretty penny there Manny...
So... *shrugs*... that's why I think there's an ulterior motive here.
I think its, anyone who dares question anything on womens health, get pulled into this "women hater" debates (lemme tell ya, I love women )
Mannahnin wrote: She's a person standing up for a cause, despite getting called names by big tough guys like you and Rush Limbaugh. Good company you find yourself in, there.
What cause? I'm rich so you should have to pay for my birth control? feth that. Get a job and pay for it yourself, loser.
She's rich? I thought you called her a loser. Did you read her testimony? Did you have a lot of extra cash when you were in grad school? Seriously, if you think that she's a loser, I do not envy Connie the abuse she's no doubt in for later when she gets radical ideas like "women should have the right to make their own reproductive decisions", and you decide she's a loser too.
She's in a rich man's school. She's got the money. Its a smokescreen. She chose that school to fight over the issue.
And this has nothing to do with reproductive rights. She has the absolute right to do anything she wants. She just doesn't have the right to make me pay for it.
And why should have to pay for sex reassignment surgery? She's advocating government pay for that as well. feth that too.
Does she think she should have to pay for anything? Sweet Jesus get a job at Walmart and find out what real life is really like. Oh wait, she's spending her time on speaking engagements as the darling of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, manufacturing fell for the third straight month. Focus people Focus!
And leave my daughter out of the discussion lest the wiener legions come and "mine" your front yard with multiple biohazards. On the positive she just won a place to compete at the next school track meet. All will bow before her greatness. The Wife, a former triathlete, can't keep up with her and his to ride a bike to keep pace. Hurray!
*unfortunately TBone is not doing good. There is concern he has cancer. Waiting on tests. Frazzled very very sad.
Sorry about T-Bone. I bring up Connie because I know we both have young women we love in our lives, and we want them to be able to take care of themselves.
Fluke having the money personally or not is beside the point; that's a distraction. Other women do not. Covering birth control is a really basic thing, it doesn't cost much, and it helps treat or avoid a lot of serious and more expensive things, like ovarian cysts, and endometriosis. That latter having come up in my own family.
And it's not just about us paying for it, it's about requiring insurance companies to do the right thing, including in policies people pay for themselves, without subsidy.
She's in a rich man's school. She's got the money. Its a smokescreen. She chose that school to fight over the issue.
Or because its, you know, a top 20 law school.
And even if that is why she chose Georgetown, why does it matter? She presented evidence that suggested Georgetown's contraceptive provision causes financial hardship to students, her own status and motivations are irrelevant.
She's in a rich man's school. She's got the money. Its a smokescreen. She chose that school to fight over the issue.
Or because its, you know, a top 20 law school.
And even if that is why she chose Georgetown, why does it matter? She presented evidence that suggested Georgetown's contraceptive provision causes financial hardship to students, her own status and motivations are irrelevant.
Yep, they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Sorry about T-Bone. I bring up Connie because I know we both have young women we love in our lives, and we want them to be able to take care of themselves.
Fluke having the money personally or not is beside the point; that's a distraction. Other women do not. Covering birth control is a really basic thing, it doesn't cost much, and it helps treat or avoid a lot of serious and more expensive things, like ovarian cysts, and endometriosis. That latter having come up in my own family.
And it's not just about us paying for it, it's about requiring insurance companies to do the right thing, including in policies people pay for themselves, without subsidy.
And then you go and make a reasoned statement like that, that I'm forced to support. Damn it!
Mannahnin wrote: Sorry about T-Bone. I bring up Connie because I know we both have young women we love in our lives, and we want them to be able to take care of themselves.
Fluke having the money personally or not is beside the point; that's a distraction. Other women do not. Covering birth control is a really basic thing, it doesn't cost much, and it helps treat or avoid a lot of serious and more expensive things, like ovarian cysts, and endometriosis. That latter having come up in my own family.
And it's not just about us paying for it, it's about requiring insurance companies to do the right thing, including in policies people pay for themselves, without subsidy.
Manny... I'm confused...
Most insurances cover BC... why? Because it's cheaper than paying for a women's childbirth.
The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
And besides, like I said earlier, it's cheap. OB Docs hand them out like candy... PP give 'em out... Heck Walmart/Target has some at $9.
It was all about starting a fight (Fluke vs Georgetown).
Well--I think this was a heck of a convention for the Democrats. A good deal of energy, some fantastic speeches and---believe it or not--the Dems are unloading on social issues .
One heck of a speech by Clinton---between him and Deval Patrick, they really brought it to the convention. He looked like he's shed some pounds too.
Weakest moment of the convention was that surreal moment of altering the platform to show they loved God more--then ignoring the nays of the people whom thought it was silly. Seemed unnecessary and reactionary..
Insurance companies do everything they can to provide the bare minimum coverage while having the prices as high as they can. They're capitalist organizations after all.
Insurance companies do everything they can to provide the bare minimum coverage while having the prices as high as they can. They're capitalist organizations after all.
Oh I agree... and then, in some cases they wont fully cover new BC.
My ex had to pay more for a certain Brand because it "worked better" (no really, her mood swing was nil on this thing)...
And I wasn't even talking about different brands. Some companies refuse to pay for birth control at all unless it is taken for a medical reason other than, well, birth control. Many states have way too overbroad regulations regarding refusal of coverage.
Just as an aside---the administration also moved the opus of the coverage from the company--to the insurer (So the company did not support the birth control in any fashion). It was still rejected.
Melissia wrote: And I wasn't even talking about different brands. Some companies refuse to pay for birth control at all unless it is taken for a medical reason other than, well, birth control.
Hmmm... I'd like to see their reasonings...
It's probably because its so cheap... but, honestly, I'm no expert on this as I've never heard of any problems with paying for BC in my neck of the woods (excepting Catholic institutions of course)...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I'll have to hit up the speeches on YouTube tonight if I get some downtime at work.
Check out the votes on the Democratic platforms (I embedded CSPAN earlier)... that was bizarre.
I thought they were mostly flat... but, Clinton rocked the house... savvy slick willy :p
whembly wrote: @sebster: puny? (say that in Hulk's voice).
I was running on Hulk's 'puny God' line.
I'd still say it isn't really necessary, or at least have some generic plithy respect to religious freedoms.
I'm not sure how anyone's religious freedoms are impacted by anyone mentioning or declining to mention God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: I think they still are a useful place for each party to articulate their message on a public stage in a defined space and time; hopefully with some good speakers.
I think it also serves some kind of goal in announcing the next generation of party leaders. So at the Republican convention Rubio gave a good speach, and so he is now considered a likely shot at 2016/2020.
Yup; it's definitely a showcase for some potential candidates and up-and-comers. Certainly was for Clinton and Obama.
whembly wrote: The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.
The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.
Frazzled wrote: She wants government to pay for her birth control and sex change operations. her. Pay for it yourself you fething loser. You give real feminists who fought for equal rights a bad rash.
How's the economy doing again?
What's that? Fraz, who we know is totally not a Republican because he keeps telling us so, ends up falling hook line and sinker for the boilerplate Republican comments just in time for the election. Well I'm shocked.
And then reconsiders his point and makes me look like a bit of an ass. Hmmm...
whembly wrote: The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.
She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...
The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.
Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...
To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Let put it like this...
Let's say there's a PRIVATE company XYZ that offers cable services... and a manager is very Christian and is always praising the lord and such... constantly trying to "spread the glory of the lord" to his employee (but, is not breaking any company rules). Most folks would be, "eh" and blow him off. But, let's say there's a practicing muslim who is very uncomfortable about this...
Can this muslim sue his manager and XYZ company? [ the answer is NO, he has no case ]. And yes, we had a recent case like this in the midwest that the case was thrown out.
whembly wrote: The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.
She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...
That's not disingenuous. It's an important distinction to make.
The example you gave is a really poor one, that isn't really applicable at all. A boss being a proselytizing imbecile is not the same as a boss who decides that they deserve to be an exception to a national law and be able to discriminate against employees who have different religious beliefs.
And honestly? If you want no laws respecting an establishment of religion, then frankly, there should NOT be an exception to religious organizations, and they should be treated like any other non-profit or for-profit organization.
whembly wrote: The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.
She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...
That's not disingenuous. It's an important distinction to make.
The example you gave is a really poor one, that isn't really applicable at all. A boss being a proselytizing imbecile is not the same as a boss who decides that they deserve to be an exception to a national law and be able to discriminate against employees who have different religious beliefs.
Fair enough... I still disagree with it.
There are 40 separate lawsuits on this that is waiting to be filed. I can't be filed yet because that mandate hasn't kicked in yet... you cant sue for something that hasn't happened yet.
I think either the SC will overturn that part, or the "conscience clause" would be expanded to allow those institutions to opt out of that mandate.
And honestly? If you want no laws respecting an establishment of religion, then frankly, there should NOT be an exception to religious organizations, and they should be treated like any other non-profit or for-profit organization.
Not sure I follow? Are you saying that they souldn't have any tax-exemption? If so, I'd agree... but, what do I know?
I find it funny, that the world has a million different problems, but we coming back to the same argument of whether the government should pay for condoms for me.
Her symptoms subsided after she received two doses of the drug Anascorp through an IV, and she was discharged from the hospital in about three hours.
Weeks later, she received a bill for $83,046 from Chandler Regional Medical Center. The hospital, owned by Dignity Health, charged her $39,652 per dose of Anascorp.
The Arizona Republic reported last year about the pricey markup Arizona hospitals were charging for the antivenom made in Mexico. Pharmacies in Mexico charge about $100 per dose.
I guess one advantage of the open border with Mexico then will be how easily Americans can go to Mexico for medical treatment.
whembly wrote: The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.
She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...
The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.
Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...
To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Let put it like this...
Let's say there's a PRIVATE company XYZ that offers cable services... and a manager is very Christian and is always praising the lord and such... constantly trying to "spread the glory of the lord" to his employee (but, is not breaking any company rules). Most folks would be, "eh" and blow him off. But, let's say there's a practicing muslim who is very uncomfortable about this...
Can this muslim sue his manager and XYZ company? [ the answer is NO, he has no case ]. And yes, we had a recent case like this in the midwest that the case was thrown out.
No, but if that manager does not allow the Muslim to pray facing Mecca, then he does have a case.
To spell this out for you: you can't force the Catholics to take birth control pills; and the Catholics cannot force their employees to not do so.
I'm not one to point out when I called something... except that's not true at all and I love pointing how much I got something right, so I'll just leave my comment from the first page...
"in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith."
whembly wrote: Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...
To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The big, big problem with what you've said there is that religious organisations are exempt. While the insurance companies will still have to provide it to any employees of those religious organisations, the religious organisations themselves will be exempt from paying.
So they've got their religious issues protected. Now they're just complaining that everyone else has to provide this care. Which, frankly, sounds a lot less like them protecting their freedoms and a lot more like them trying to force their freedoms onto the rest of us.
Have American Catholics not noticed that in every other first world nation, the Catholic church and Catholic-affiliated institutions all pay taxes which go to fund state healthcare which provides free or subsidised birth control?
Accepting that an elected government will spend some of the taxes you pay on things you don't want is something people should be used to in a pluralist democracy. If you don't approve, you can express that at the ballot box in the same way as everybody else.
Yeah, I would be more sympathetic to Catholics and birth control if we ever heard the Catholic Bishops talk half as much about war, poverty, and other such evils.
I'm not a Christian but I have read the New Testament, and I mostly remember Jesus talking about peace and justice. Not a whole lot about birth control or gay marriage.
And, whoa, Frazzled. You alright, buddy? I can't imagine what you think of me if you think Sandra Fluke is a whore.
I wish Frazzled was the only person I had heard using that term to describe Fluke.
Sadly, Republicans have a fondness for using the term "whore" or "slut" and other such lovely appellations to describe women who support things like government-subsidized birth control, the right to choose to have an abortion, equal pay for women, or... well, any feminist topic. "Feminazi" comes to mind as well, as does "psycho lesbian bitch".
I would know, I've been called most of those myself for expressing those views... grassroots Republican movements really bring out the worst in the party.
Mannahnin wrote: Yup; it's definitely a showcase for some potential candidates and up-and-comers. Certainly was for Clinton and Obama.
Deval Patrick is gonna be a star, I think. I was impressed not just with his speech -- because even Sarah Palin can give a pretty good speech -- but with some of his interviews afterward.
Also, Willy's still got it. Like I said in another thread...who wants to bet against Hillary and Bill in 2016? Anyone? And look for Bill -- health permitting -- to play a much more prominent role than he did in 2008.
I tend to think Obama's post-convention bounce will be muted just because everyone seems pretty entrenched already. But I think the Dems had the stronger convention, at least so far. Obviously, we have yet to hear what Obama has to say. Still, I think the Dems will come out of the convention more motivated than they went in, which is really important for them.
Easy E wrote: Yeah, I don't recall anyoen even mentioning the RNC on these boards.
Of course, I didn't monitor every thread either.
The thread about Eastwood being off his meds I think is the closest. Like you, I don't check every thread, but it's safe to say there aren't many Republican fans on Dakka so almost any comment about Republicans isn't full of sunshine due to opposing viewpoints.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This news article makes it look like the changing of the platform language an ugly event for the Dems, also.
whembly wrote: Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...
To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The big, big problem with what you've said there is that religious organisations are exempt. While the insurance companies will still have to provide it to any employees of those religious organisations, the religious organisations themselves will be exempt from paying.
So they've got their religious issues protected. Now they're just complaining that everyone else has to provide this care. Which, frankly, sounds a lot less like them protecting their freedoms and a lot more like them trying to force their freedoms onto the rest of us.
That part is not true sebster...
There's a conscience exemption you can ask for that has to be approved by HHS... but, it's so rigorous the Catholics were denied.
Again, let me say this again... the issue is that ACA forces institutions like the Catholic diocese to cover BC in their insurance offerings. This is NOT them preventing their employees to find other insurances (including the ACA exchange) which does cover this.
That's why there's over 40 lawsuits on the docket for this...
whembly wrote: The issue is forcing an organization to cover something that runs contrary to their belief (Catholics). Note: I'm a heathen, so I don't really care, but understand why the Catholic Institution would consider this a intrusion to their belief.
I didn't realize that she was advocating forcing Catholics to take birth control pills.
She's not... look, you're being disingenuous here with that^ argument...
The religious freedom angle is backward here. No Catholic is being forced to violate their religious beliefs and use birth control pills. Organizations are being asked not to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and students, who have the right to make a different religious choice.
Frankly... that "freedom angle" you have is IS backwards...
To wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Let put it like this...
Let's say there's a PRIVATE company XYZ that offers cable services... and a manager is very Christian and is always praising the lord and such... constantly trying to "spread the glory of the lord" to his employee (but, is not breaking any company rules). Most folks would be, "eh" and blow him off. But, let's say there's a practicing muslim who is very uncomfortable about this...
Can this muslim sue his manager and XYZ company? [ the answer is NO, he has no case ]. And yes, we had a recent case like this in the midwest that the case was thrown out.
No, but if that manager does not allow the Muslim to pray facing Mecca, then he does have a case.
Correct, but that's not what we're talking about here...
To spell this out for you: you can't force the Catholics to take birth control pills; and the Catholics cannot force their employees to not do so.
I don't understand where you're saying the Catholics are forcing their employees to anything... they provide insurance coverage based on their belief as part of their compensation benefits... the employees are free to work for someone else if they don't like this compensation benefits.
Look, like I said earlier, I really don't care... and I understand both points.
But, you have to understand, the Catholics are backed in a corner here.
They won't simply drop the health benefit packages as they'll still have to pay the tax support the ACA (which runs contrary to their belief as the exchange covers those things).
They have a nuke button and don't think they won't entertain this...
This nuke button is to stop offering those services and shut down their operations (that is, no more schools, colleges, hospitals).
I think in the end, the HHS will relax the restrictions on the conscience exemption to allow them to not cover these things... you'll see.
Where's the Catholic uproar of war? Or cutting welfare and food stamps? Or any other issue that Jesus actually talked about?
More to the point, if contraception did nothing but stopped ladies from getting all pregnant and gak you might have an argument, maybe. It does lots of other things for Ovarian Americans, though, so stop hating on them.
TheHammer wrote: Where's the Catholic uproar of war? Or cutting welfare and food stamps? Or any other issue that Jesus actually talked about?
eh? they always talk about that dude... go to church sometimes (yes, a heathen dad sends his kidz to church and catholic school... hilarity ensued...)
More to the point, if contraception did nothing but stopped ladies from getting all pregnant and gak you might have an argument, maybe. It does lots of other things for Ovarian Americans, though, so stop hating on them.
Just to let you know, at least in my diocese, they'll cover the BC treatment for off-label use... you just need a doctor's note (fill a waiver form I think). [ I'm getting this from a friend who teaches at my boy's school ]
Melissia wrote: I wish Frazzled was the only person I had heard using that term to describe Fluke.
Sadly, Republicans have a fondness for using the term "whore" or "slut" and other such lovely appellations to describe women who support things like government-subsidized birth control, the right to choose to have an abortion, equal pay for women, or... well, any feminist topic. "Feminazi" comes to mind as well, as does "psycho lesbian bitch".
I would know, I've been called most of those myself for expressing those views... grassroots Republican movements really bring out the worst in the party.
media whore. You people should get your glasses checked.
TheHammer wrote: Where's the Catholic uproar of war? Or cutting welfare and food stamps? Or any other issue that Jesus actually talked about?
eh? they always talk about that dude... go to church sometimes (yes, a heathen dad sends his kidz to church and catholic school... hilarity ensued...)
More to the point, if contraception did nothing but stopped ladies from getting all pregnant and gak you might have an argument, maybe. It does lots of other things for Ovarian Americans, though, so stop hating on them.
Just to let you know, at least in my diocese, they'll cover the BC treatment for off-label use... you just need a doctor's note (fill a waiver form I think). [ I'm getting this from a friend who teaches at my boy's school ]
So you would defend the exact same position of a Christian Science institution to refuse to pay for any health insurance whatsoever because they don't believe in medicine?
It's difficult to express how affirming and moving Sister Simone Campbell's speech was last night. I know that this little gem will go largely unnoticed by many Democrats and will be scorned many Republicans (I've read the news today, after all) but what Sister Simone is talking about is authentic.
For anyone who hates on the Church, please listen to her message and ask yourself what role that hatred really serves in our society. I would be surprised if any lay people have faced the kind of ecclesiastical pressures that Sister Simone and her colleagues have and clearly, clearly they remain faithful Catholics committed to living out the Gospel.
TheHammer wrote: Where's the Catholic uproar of war? Or cutting welfare and food stamps? Or any other issue that Jesus actually talked about?
eh? they always talk about that dude... go to church sometimes (yes, a heathen dad sends his kidz to church and catholic school... hilarity ensued...)
More to the point, if contraception did nothing but stopped ladies from getting all pregnant and gak you might have an argument, maybe. It does lots of other things for Ovarian Americans, though, so stop hating on them.
Just to let you know, at least in my diocese, they'll cover the BC treatment for off-label use... you just need a doctor's note (fill a waiver form I think). [ I'm getting this from a friend who teaches at my boy's school ]
So you would defend the exact same position of a Christian Science institution to refuse to pay for any health insurance whatsoever because they don't believe in medicine?
Yup.
You're not forced to work for those institution... and why does everyone think employers are the ONLY source to get insurance? You can get 'em outside of your place of work. (but, alas, it can be more expensive depending on what you want).
Frazzled wrote: Too bad Bill is not running. Is it too late to change horses?
But he is a great standard bearer for what the Democrats stand for.
I'm not sure if Republicans have the same right now, and I'm honestly not sure if it matters. The Repubs have plenty of standard bearers of their own. And enough voices can drown out Bill's one strong voice.
Manchu wrote: It's difficult to express how affirming and moving Sister Simone Campbell's speech was last night. I know that this little gem will go largely unnoticed by many Democrats and will be scorned many Republicans (I've read the news today, after all) but what Sister Simone is talking about is authentic.
For anyone who hates on the Church, please listen to her message and ask yourself what role that hatred really serves in our society. I would be surprised if any lay people have faced the kind of ecclesiastical pressures that Sister Simone and her colleagues have and clearly, clearly they remain faithful Catholics committed to living out the Gospel.
She says that she agrees with with her Bishops, but this article and others I've read in the news says otherwvise. Other articles I've read say she takes issue with the Pope. Are these articles just hyperbole then? There's a lot I don't understand about the workings within Catholic religious orders and I would like to know from an insider whose opinion I respect what goes on here. The standing ovation she got was a huge contrast to the boos and disruption I saw with the alteration of the Democratic platform to include mention of God.
You're not forced to work for those institution... and why does everyone think employers are the ONLY source to get insurance? You can get 'em outside of your place of work. (but, alas, it can be more expensive depending on what you want).
So is this a by product of your ("your" as in general American people, not you personally), view that "corporations are people too"? Because as far as I know, individuals have freedom of religion, companies are not individuals...
By that reasoning, shouldn't Catholic companies refuse to pay taxes because those are used to fund wars, or even to directly fund some states that enforce the death penalty? Isn't "thou shall not kill" a bit higher up in the 10 commandments than "thou shall not take the pill"?
You're not forced to work for those institution... and why does everyone think employers are the ONLY source to get insurance? You can get 'em outside of your place of work. (but, alas, it can be more expensive depending on what you want).
So is this a by product of your ("your" as in general American people, not you personally), view that "corporations are people too"? Because as far as I know, individuals have freedom of religion, companies are not individuals...
This has nothing to do with "corporations are people".
By that reasoning, shouldn't Catholic companies refuse to pay taxes because those are used to fund wars, or even to directly fund some states that enforce the death penalty? Isn't "thou shall not kill" a bit higher up in the 10 commandments than "thou shall not take the pill"?
They're already tax exempt. (now, I disagree with this tho, but that's a different debate).
This is just something im wondering. And im not trying to insult anyones beliefs.
But i know alot of Christians find Mormonism weird and odd. I know a few that do myself, and in some place of the country it isnt even that big of a religion. Could people not vote for romney because of his religion.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is just something im wondering. And im not trying to insult anyones beliefs.
But i know alot of Christians find Mormonism weird and odd. I know a few that do myself, and in some place of the country it isnt even that big of a religion. Could people not vote for romney because of his religion.
I'm Mormon myself, so no offense taken. I thought some of the beliefs were a tad strange until I did some studying and realized for me, there was a real logic behind them. At that point I got baptized into the church.
Kennedy faced the same hurdle when he ran for president in that he had to deal with people's fears of what the first Catholic President would be up to.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is just something im wondering. And im not trying to insult anyones beliefs.
But i know alot of Christians find Mormonism weird and odd. I know a few that do myself, and in some place of the country it isnt even that big of a religion. Could people not vote for romney because of his religion.
Well, if you are the type that cares about such things you are most likely a low information voter anyway. Your choices are:
whembly wrote:To spell this out for you: you can't force the Catholics to take birth control pills; and the Catholics cannot force their employees to not do so. I don't understand where you're saying the Catholics are forcing their employees to anything... they provide insurance coverage based on their belief as part of their compensation benefits... the employees are free to work for someone else if they don't like this compensation benefits.
We've had this exact conversation before, wherein I pointed out that this argument cuts both ways: if the Catholic Church doesn't like being forced to provide health care, then they are free to set up shop in a different country.
whembly wrote:This nuke button is to stop offering those services and shut down their operations (that is, no more schools, colleges, hospitals).
What you call a "nuke button", I call the best possible outcome. I'm unaware of how many Catholic-owned hospitalsare in the US, but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
whembly wrote:To spell this out for you: you can't force the Catholics to take birth control pills; and the Catholics cannot force their employees to not do so. I don't understand where you're saying the Catholics are forcing their employees to anything... they provide insurance coverage based on their belief as part of their compensation benefits... the employees are free to work for someone else if they don't like this compensation benefits.
We've had this exact conversation before, wherein I pointed out that this argument cuts both ways: if the Catholic Church doesn't like being forced to provide health care, then they are free to set up shop in a different country.
Sorry thats not how the Bill of RIghts works. Fail: EPIC!
whembly wrote:This nuke button is to stop offering those services and shut down their operations (that is, no more schools, colleges, hospitals).
What you call a "nuke button", I call the best possible outcome. I'm unaware of how many Catholic-owned hospitalsare in the US, but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
Wow just wow. This is the most bigoted, not to mention short sighted statement I've seen in at least three minutes.
Az there are quite a few religion spnsored hospital. Two chains I know of around Seatle off the top of my head. Four chains around DC...actually what we call DelMarVa
whembly wrote:To spell this out for you: you can't force the Catholics to take birth control pills; and the Catholics cannot force their employees to not do so. I don't understand where you're saying the Catholics are forcing their employees to anything... they provide insurance coverage based on their belief as part of their compensation benefits... the employees are free to work for someone else if they don't like this compensation benefits.
We've had this exact conversation before, wherein I pointed out that this argument cuts both ways: if the Catholic Church doesn't like being forced to provide health care, then they are free to set up shop in a different country.
Az... you still don't get it... but, that's okay.
whembly wrote:This nuke button is to stop offering those services and shut down their operations (that is, no more schools, colleges, hospitals).
What you call a "nuke button", I call the best possible outcome. I'm unaware of how many Catholic-owned hospitalsare in the US, but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
Just Catholic healthcare organizations make up between 30-40% (I forget the actual percentage)of all healhcare providers. It's a sizable number.
Not to mention to all the religious based schools and colleges.
If they were to drop those services... the pressure to local governnent to fill in the gap would be insurmountable.
Edit: it's actually about 15% of inpatient hospitals are operated by Catholic diocese...and approximately 20% of long term care/other community healthcare system are ran by the Catholics... it's still a sizable organization.
azazel the cat wrote: but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in the OT forum. Achievement Unlocked.
azazel the cat wrote: but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in the OT forum. Achievement Unlocked.
Nah. I don't think that comes close to Frazzled's Top Ten Posts O' Crazy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Finally someone had the conviction to point out that Notre Dame has been holding back the US.
Manchu wrote: It's difficult to express how affirming and moving Sister Simone Campbell's speech was last night. I know that this little gem will go largely unnoticed by many Democrats and will be scorned many Republicans (I've read the news today, after all) but what Sister Simone is talking about is authentic.
Thank you! I am embarassed that I forgot to mention her. She was wonderful and inspiring.
Relapse wrote: She says that she agrees with with her Bishops, but this article and others I've read in the news says otherwvise. Other articles I've read say she takes issue with the Pope. Are these articles just hyperbole then? There's a lot I don't understand about the workings within Catholic religious orders and I would like to know from an insider whose opinion I respect what goes on here. The standing ovation she got was a huge contrast to the boos and disruption I saw with the alteration of the Democratic platform to include mention of God.
The boos and disruption were over a last-minute platform change seemingly made in kneejerk response to a stupid Republican criticism. Obviously most of the audience has respect for principled people of faith (at least ones whom they share some common ground with), as was shown in their response to Sister Simone.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm unaware of how many Catholic-owned hospitalsare in the US, but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
Yeah, no, that was a terrible comment.
Catholic organizations run a huge number of good, high-quality healthcare organizations and hospitals in this country, and a lot of highly-respected and rigorous educational institutions. My little sister went to a Catholic school for primary education as it was the best option around us, and the sisters were respectful of our family's religion.
There ARE religious schools in the US which make a mockery of good education (Liberty University, anyone?), but taking aim at the Catholic schools is way off target.
1) Democrats decide not to include a mention of God into their platform.
2) DNC delegates take a vote and approve.
3) Republicans have a field day with that decision
4) DNC leadership decides that they should include God anyway
5) DNC has a vote requiring 2/3 majority
6) No clear majority was obtained.
7) Vote again, and no majority, repeat.
8) DNC leadership decides to ignore the actual results and pretend that the vote passes.
9) DNC delegates boo the leaderships decision to ignore the result of the votes and to ignore the candidates.
His point is that's not what happened. The distorted version is that they were angry about a mention of god. The actual version is that they were angry about being railroaded.
Jihadin wrote:Az there are quite a few religion spnsored hospital. Two chains I know of around Seatle off the top of my head. Four chains around DC...actually what we call DelMarVa
Ah. Thanks for the clean answer. As I said, I was unaware of how commonplace Catholic-sponsored hospitals are in the US.
whembly wrote:This nuke button is to stop offering those services and shut down their operations (that is, no more schools, colleges, hospitals).
What you call a "nuke button", I call the best possible outcome. I'm unaware of how many Catholic-owned hospitalsare in the US, but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
Wow just wow. This is the most bigoted, not to mention short sighted statement I've seen in at least three minutes.
Yeah, sorry, but I just can't hide it. I guess I'm just not a fan of institutions that promulgate beliefs in magic teaching science, and have an aversion to the cognitive dissonance required to reconcile the two.
Manchu wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: but I know what with the removal of Catholic schools and colleges, the US can actually make some progress towards being the world-leader in sciences again.
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in the OT forum. Achievement Unlocked.
So you don't think there's a correlation between the US taking such a hit in science education rankings and the persistence in the belief in the US that angels are real? Please, enlighten me as to how one of the dumbest things you've ever seen posted is the suggestion that a fact-based scientific education will flourish in the absence of an institution that indoctrinates children with a belief in magic.
You seem to have a misconception about how Catholic schools and Universities in the United States teach.
There are religious-based institutions which let their religion get in the way of the teaching, but it's not generally common among Catholic institutions. Historically they do have classes on religious topics, but they don't let them obstruct the other academic subjects.
Georgetown, as an example, is a top 20 law school.
Wasn't sure if the "disgruntledness" was from adding in "God" or "Jerusaluem being the capital of Isreal" or both. If you look at the pictures at the moment when it happen they were showing Arab americans. Well the perception of it is focus on them. Not pointing them out.
Jihadin wrote: Wasn't sure if the "disgruntledness" was from adding in "God" or "Jerusaluem being the capital of Isreal" or both. If you look at the pictures at the moment when it happen they were showing Arab americans. Well the perception of it is focus on them. Not pointing them out.
I am fairly sure that the "disgruntledness" was from this this:
"I know you all already voted on this yesterday, but let's vote on reversing what you all decided on yesterday, everybody in favor?"
"No" "Well then, sounds like everybody agrees with us, good job everybody, nothing to see here, carry on."
But please keep on repeating the same talking points that every conservative news outlet wants you to repeat, that everytime God is mentioned at the DNC people go "booooooooooo".
English Assassin wrote: Have American Catholics not noticed that in every other first world nation, the Catholic church and Catholic-affiliated institutions all pay taxes which go to fund state healthcare which provides free or subsidised birth control?
Actually, the UK, Australia and most other developed nations grant an exemption from tax for religious institutions. The specifics vary from nation to nation, but the rule is pretty common.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Yeah, I would be more sympathetic to Catholics and birth control if we ever heard the Catholic Bishops talk half as much about war, poverty, and other such evils.
To be fair, religious bodies issue these kinds of statements pretty frequently. They get ignored by both sides of politics as they suit neither narrative, and therefore get ignored by the media at large.
There's a conscience exemption you can ask for that has to be approved by HHS... but, it's so rigorous the Catholics were denied.
Not quite. The Catholic Church as a whole was not granted a broad exemption. This means that organisations under the Catholic Church, mostly hospitals, will not be exempted, though specifically religious bodies such as local diocese would be.
And then there's the simple fact that even in non-religious organisations run by churches such as those hospitals... there is an exemption that the Church doesn't have to pay for the coverage.
At which point I'm really left wondering what they're protesting.
whembly wrote: But, you have to understand, the Catholics are backed in a corner here.
Except state laws in most states in the union have required at least as much as the ACA requires, and Catholic organisations have been quietly complying with those laws for years.
But now that hospitals under Catholic organisations are required by Federal law to provide contraception, but not actually have to pay for it, well now they're upset? "It is a great infringement on my religious organisation that a non-Catholic employed in a non-religious business we own will have contraception covered that my employee will not be paying for."
whembly wrote: I’m sitting here listening to Biden: “One thing I knew of Barack is the enormity of his heart”.
Did I hear that right?
From Webster: “Definition of ENORMITY. 1. : an outrageous, improper, vicious, or immoral act “
??
Also, my brother sent me this... this is one of the possible swags you can get at the DNC:
Do they not care?
Seriously?
Oh hey guys, he said enormity. According to the dictionary it means (hmm, can't use #3....can't use #4...let me just one one of the definitions to make my point!"
3: the quality or state of being huge : immensity <the inconceivable enormity of the universe>
4: a quality of momentous importance or impact <the enormity of the decision>
Odds are you don't know the right conservatives. I hope his Mormonism much of an issue, and I really hope the Democrats don't play on the issue, but I'd be a fool to pretend that evangelical voters see Romney in the same they'd see one of their own.
whembly wrote: But, you have to understand, the Catholics are backed in a corner here.
Except state laws in most states in the union have required at least as much as the ACA requires, and Catholic organisations have been quietly complying with those laws for years.
But now that hospitals under Catholic organisations are required by Federal law to provide contraception, but not actually have to pay for it, well now they're upset? "It is a great infringement on my religious organisation that a non-Catholic employed in a non-religious business we own will have contraception covered that my employee will not be paying for."
I mean, really?
No seb, you're wrong. I personally know that these catholic instituions do NOT cover them.
Usually, my ex would say she works for the Diocese and her OB doc would just hand her crap ton of samples.
The odd thing about this is that the Catholic organizations are in favor of ACA (essentially more support for healthcare)... but this, I know they won't stand for...
Mannahnin wrote: You seem to have a misconception about how Catholic schools and Universities in the United States teach.
There are religious-based institutions which let their religion get in the way of the teaching, but it's not generally common among Catholic institutions. Historically they do have classes on religious topics, but they don't let them obstruct the other academic subjects.
Georgetown, as an example, is a top 20 law school.
Absolutely. Catholic teaching bodies have a long and proud intellectual tradition. It is an all too common assumption that all religious teaching must be that 'no evolution' nonsense.
Odds are you don't know the right conservatives. I hope his Mormonism much of an issue, and I really hope the Democrats don't play on the issue, but I'd be a fool to pretend that evangelical voters see Romney in the same they'd see one of their own.
The Evangelicals that I know don't really care about Mormonism... sure, there's bigots... but, there everywhere in all walks of life.
Mannahnin wrote: After that gak you spewed in the thread from your brother, why do you expect people to engage you in polite discussion right now?
I thought it was funny... ya know, levity?
It's too serious here sometimes.
Shoot... when the Eastwooding was all the rage, OBAMA tweeted his chair at the WH saying "this seat is taken". That. Was. Awesome! Show Obama has a good sense of humor .
whembly wrote: No seb, you're wrong. I personally know that these catholic instituions do NOT cover them.
Usually, my ex would say she works for the Diocese and her OB doc would just hand her crap ton of samples.
No, I am not wrong. Read what I am saying.
There was a general exemption applied for for all Catholic owned organisations. This was denied, because it was felt that while schools and hospitals might be owned by the Catholic Church, they are not actually religious operations, in that their members are not required to be of that faith, nor are they specifically carrying out religious activity.
In addition to that, even those organisations, while required to provide contraceptive healthcare, are not actually required to pay for it. The insurance companies are required to cover that, but not pass that cost onto the churches.
What I have written above is not an opinion. It is a matter of policy.
No one's going to attack him for being a Mormon. They're just going to hope that Evangelicals are less enthused by him and come out in lower numbers than they would for one of their own.
whembly wrote: No seb, you're wrong. I personally know that these catholic instituions do NOT cover them.
Usually, my ex would say she works for the Diocese and her OB doc would just hand her crap ton of samples.
No, I am not wrong. Read what I am saying.
Okay... reading...
There was a general exemption applied for for all Catholic owned organisations. This was denied, because it was felt that while schools and hospitals might be owned by the Catholic Church, they are not actually religious operations, in that their members are not required to be of that faith, nor are they specifically carrying out religious activity.
They're still religious organizations Seb... otherwise, why the tax exemption? (different issue, I know, but point stands)
In addition to that, even those organisations, while required to provide contraceptive healthcare, are not actually required to pay for it. The insurance companies are required to cover that, but not pass that cost onto the churches.
Not sure I follow? Are the plans themselve suppose to say "yeah, we cover 'em", but they won't pay for it? How does that work? Not being snarky here, just trying to get this thru my cave-man skull.
When there are so many other things to dislike about Romney, why even touch his religion?
"I heard, or from the excerpts that are put out, I hear that the president is going to report on the promises he made and how he has performed in those promises; I'd love to watch it. But if it's another series of new promises that he's not going to keep, I have no interest in seeing him because I saw the promises last time. Those are promises he did not keep, and the American people deserve to know why he did not keep his promises."
Calling Sandra Fluke a whore is only funny to sexist donkey-caves. Seriously. Women's healthcare and reproductive rights are worth standing up for. Guys trying to bully them into silence by dismissing them as sluts or whores are cowardly pieces of gak. A good litmus test for whether your standard of discourse is worthy of respect and doesn't make you look like a waste of skin in a world of burn victims, is to not follow Rush Limbaugh's lead on this crap.
FWIW Fluke's main issue is domestic violence. This is kind of a sideline.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, how did folks feel about the speeches tonight? I heard Kerry was good, but I missed him.
I liked Biden. He's got a real warmth and folksiness and sincerity to him.
Obama was darn good, but not quite as compelling as Clinton. Of course Clinton had free reign, and Obama was deliberately keeping his tone more moderate, and talking more about compromise and respect across the aisle. Cooler disposition, a little less exciting to watch. Still a damn fine speaker though. Blew Romney's doors off.
Replaced my 2008 sticker today, with an updated Obama/Biden, and an I <3 Obamacare. Hoping in this partisan environment that my car doesn't get keyed.
Mannahnin wrote: Calling Sandra Fluke a whore is only funny to sexist donkey-caves. Seriously. Women's healthcare and reproductive rights are worth standing up for. Guys trying to bully them into silence by dismissing them as sluts or whores are cowardly pieces of gak. A good litmus test for whether your standard of discourse is worthy of respect and doesn't make you look like a waste of skin in a world of burn victims, is to not follow Rush Limbaugh's lead on this crap.
FWIW Fluke's main issue is domestic violence. This is kind of a sideline.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, how did folks feel about the speeches tonight? I heard Kerry was good, but I missed him.
I liked Biden. He's got a real warmth and folksiness and sincerity to him.
Obama was darn good, but not quite as compelling as Clinton. Of course Clinton had free reign, and Obama was deliberately keeping his tone more moderate, and talking more about compromise and respect across the aisle. Cooler disposition, a little less exciting to watch. Still a damn fine speaker though. Blew Romney's doors off.
Replaced my 2008 sticker today, with an updated Obama/Biden, and an I <3 Obamacare. Hoping in this partisan environment that my car doesn't get keyed.
I thought Kerry was "okay".
Biden was fun...
Clinton rocked the house...
I was kinda meh on Obama's speech... seems like it the same speech at his SOTU address. Spice it up bro!
And keying a car 'cuz a bumper sticker is lame... hope no one does that.
Republicans or Democrats are the only two political parties recognized in Oklahoma that never have to petition for ballot access. You can run as "indepentend" on the ballot which basically groups all us third party members into the "other" category. I don't think that independents can run for Governor or President though, although don't quote me on that.
No write-in votes allowed. Any ballots with writing are declared invalid.
To qualify as a political party (other than D or R which are automatic) a party has to collect signatures that equal 5% of the votes cast in the last general election. This year that means around 52,000 signatures but to survive the challenges to indivual signatures you have to collect closer to 65,000. The number will go back up to 80,000 after the presidential election. The only party in the last 12 years that has accomplished that has been the American Elect Party.
If you do make it on the ballot then you have to get 10% of the vote for Governor of President or you loose your official status and have to start from scratch.
It used to take 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Then in the 1970's a third party got 20% of the vote in the state so the big two freaked out and changed it to this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Is that the state with "None of the Above" voting option...or was D-USA?
Nope, just R or D. Americans Elect didn't nominate a president at their national convention, so the actual Oklahoma State Americans Elect Party submitted their own name which was rejected by the state because "national didn't select anybody" even though there is no such thing as a national political party in Oklahoma. Still hoping the lawsuit goes through and puts a third option on the ballot though.
Now a democrat delegate is under investigation by the Secret Service for saying she would like to kill Romney if she ever met him. Whew there's some hate going on here lol
whembly wrote: I don't think I've ever seen an attack ad on the candidate's religion.
It tends to be more subtle than that. People questioning Obama's place of birth wasn't an outright attack on the colour of his skin, but it's hard to see how anyone could have taken it seriously if he'd been white.
Did it happen with Kennedy? I vaguely remember that it happened and the backlash was immense.
I have no idea how much stuff the other campaign ran with, but it was an issue.
When Kerry ran people commented how good it was that his Catholicism was now a dead issue. Maybe now with Romney running we're at a point where most people don't even think to notice that it's a dead issue?
They're still religious organizations Seb... otherwise, why the tax exemption? (different issue, I know, but point stands)
Actually hospitals don't receive a tax exemption just for being owned by a church. Generally they don't pay tax anyway because they're not for profit (and so there's no profit to tax), but to get the exemption for being a religious organisation you actually have to be dedicated entirely to worship and charity, not merely owned by such an organisation.
Not sure I follow? Are the plans themselve suppose to say "yeah, we cover 'em", but they won't pay for it? How does that work? Not being snarky here, just trying to get this thru my cave-man skull.
Fair enough, it's a pretty weird set up. But basically the insurance provider is required to provide contraception as part of their healthcare coverage for all employees, but cannot pass this on to the hospital/school. Instead it comes out of the profit the insurer would make out of the deal, and the religious organisation doesn't have to pay for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: No one's going to attack him for being a Mormon. They're just going to hope that Evangelicals are less enthused by him and come out in lower numbers than they would for one of their own.
There wouldn't ever be an open attack, more a chance that they'd run with certain lines of attack that hint at it. Like Romney saying 'they never ask for my birth certificate'.
I haven't seen anything to date, which has been excellent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Republicans or Democrats are the only two political parties recognized in Oklahoma that never have to petition for ballot access. You can run as "indepentend" on the ballot which basically groups all us third party members into the "other" category. I don't think that independents can run for Governor or President though, although don't quote me on that.
Jihadin wrote: Now a democrat delegate is under investigation by the Secret Service for saying she would like to kill Romney if she ever met him. Whew there's some hate going on here lol
Dumb. Everything like this, no matter where it comes from, is dumb.
I read a piece recently that explained one thing never mentioned in coverage of both conventions is that a really large portion of the attendees are really drunk. This is there big get together piss up before the serious work of campaigning starts.
Suddenly all those odd people standing red faced in the background of interviews made sense, as did all the offensive stuff called out during speaches.
That doesn't excuse what the idiot Democratic attendee did, but maybe it explains it.
Odds are you don't know the right conservatives. I hope his Mormonism much of an issue, and I really hope the Democrats don't play on the issue, but I'd be a fool to pretend that evangelical voters see Romney in the same they'd see one of their own.
I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life.
I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.
Relapse wrote: I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life. I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.
You didn't get any of that Big Love money? All anyone needs to know about LDS they can learn from HBO.
Odds are you don't know the right conservatives. I hope his Mormonism much of an issue, and I really hope the Democrats don't play on the issue, but I'd be a fool to pretend that evangelical voters see Romney in the same they'd see one of their own.
I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life.
I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.
Apropo of all this Oklahoma talk. 538 has Oklahoma as 100% for Romney. Most other red states in the South are like 96.5% or 99.5%, but not Oklahoma. 100% sure it is a Romeny state.
Kal Penn talks about the Republican's invisible man in a chair, but the Democrats, not to be outdone, produce several hundred apparently invisible and silent delegates or some seriously deaf and blind people up on the stand counting votes on that issue.
Relapse wrote: I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life. I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.
You didn't get any of that Big Love money? All anyone needs to know about LDS they can learn from HBO.
Yeah, it would have been nice to have another few million to keep all those other millions I have stashed in a vault company while I laugh at the starving children in the street!
As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.
woah... it's actually worse... here's CSPAN:
her. Pay for it yourself you fething loser. You give real feminists who fought for equal rights a bad rash. 
)
