Ayatollah: Kill all jews, annihilate israel

[Guest]

With all the talk in Washington about a "possible" Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear power capabilities, especially those ratcheted up by our President against our main ally in the region, where is the coverage of this story?

Calling Israel a "danger to Islam", the Iranian government through a website proxy has laid out their legal and religious "justification" for for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people. The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material". It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

So, do we abandon Israel to the designs of the leaders of this "peaceful religion" of Islam which thinks it needs to complete the Nazi extermination of the Jews?

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel (http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/)

[Guest]

Nope, put our drones to good use.

[Guest]

With all the talk in Washington about a "possible" Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear power capabilities, especially those ratcheted up by our President against our main ally in the region, where is the coverage of this story?

Calling Israel a "danger to Islam", the Iranian government through a website proxy has laid out their legal and religious "justification" for for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people. The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material". It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

So, do we abandon Israel to the designs of the leaders of this "peaceful religion" of Islam which thinks it needs to complete the Nazi extermination of the Jews?

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel (http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/)


I dont want to hijack your thread RICHIE, but just a comment on a "part" of your post.

WHERE is our supposed media ? They will talk about a slip of the tongue of Romney and ignore things that are very very serious in this world. Even on here, we are so enamored with who we love instead of what the #$%% is going on in this country.

Again, I read your link and more on this subject and do not want to steal the main theme but watch the "headline" on our news shows.....Romney did this, Gingerich did this...the President is here and there talking politics...who is minding the store ?

[Guest]

I dont want to hijack your thread RICHIE, but just a comment on a "part" of your post.

WHERE is our supposed media ? They will talk about a slip of the tongue of Romney and ignore things that are very very serious in this world. Even on here, we are so enamored with who we love instead of what the #$%% is going on in this country.

Again, I read your link and more on this subject and do not want to steal the main theme but watch the "headline" on our news shows.....Romney did this, Gingerich did this...the President is here and there talking politics...who is minding the store ?

Bucco, your observations are right on target. I am also attacking the liberal media for their non-coverage of this story and their reporting of trash.

I applaud your comments.

[Guest]

I think that within 6 to 8 months, Obama will encourage Isreal to hit Iran and use the "crisis" to his advantage, he will help Isreal, as it will help him get re-elected. Just my guess on this whole mess.

[Guest]

I think that within 6 to 8 months, Obama will encourage Isreal to hit Iran and use the "crisis" to his advantage, he will help Isreal, as it will help him get re-elected. Just my guess on this whole mess.

This is why Panetta stirred the pot. No way was it loose lips. He was CIA. Now, the Persians are moving their chit around and our eyes are seeing the activity. BOOM. There ya go.

[Guest]

I think you give Panetta too much credit. I don't believe the President will stand by Israel. He's shown no predilection to do so up to this point.

Will he take a stand for Israel to enhance his election chances? Maybe, but it would be antithetical to every action he's taken toward Israel up to this point.

[Guest]

This is why Panetta stirred the pot. No way was it loose lips. He was CIA. Now, the Persians are moving their chit around and our eyes are seeing the activity. BOOM. There ya go.

We have to do something NOW so that they can't make nuclear bombs. If taking out their nuclear capability makes them attack us, let them do it BEFORE they have bombs.

If no one stops them they will attack Israel and then all hell breaks loose. Ten years from now, everyone will be asking how the US could have been so stupid in believing the little worm saying it is for peaceful purposes. Everyone knows its not.

There is no good ending to this; but the best ending is the one that will limit loss of life to the smallest possible number. And that means sooner rather then later. Iran's rulers are both hate mongers who believe it is their destiny to destroy Isreal. That will not happen Never again means just that....NEVER AGAIN.

[Guest]

Bible prophecy in Ezekial is very interesting on this subject:

”......Current Events In Light of Bible Prophecy.” It was the first event of its kind to which I have been invited in Israel and it was a fascinating experience. My focus was the prophecies found in Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39, what Bible scholars describe as the coming “War of Gog & Magog.”

Here are Part One of my notes.

Today, let’s start by defining who “Gog” and “Magog” are, when this prophecy will take place, and what countries will be participating in the coalition against Israel:

The Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel lived in Babylon (Iraq) more than 2,500 years ago and the Lord gave him a vision of events that would take place in the future.

Ezekiel 38:16 specifically tells us these events will take place in the “last days” — that is in the End Times before the Messiah comes to set up His kingdom on earth.

Ezekiel chapters 36 and 37 set the stage for the “War of Gog and Magog” by describing that Israel will be reborn as a country in the last days, the Jewish people will come back to the Holy Land from exile all over the world, the Jewish people will rebuild the ancient ruins and make the deserts bloom again. These things have all happened, and this suggests we are getting closer to the fulfillment of the next set of prophecies.

Ezekiel 38:2 tells us that the war will be led be someone known as “Gog.” This is not a personal name. We’re not looking for someone named David Gog. Or Ahmed Gog. Or Dmitri Gog. Rather, “Gog” is a title, like a “Pharoah” or a “Czar.” Through the prophecy, this Gog is described as a military leader, a political leader, and a coalition builder. In Ezekiel 38:10 he is described as developing an “evil plan,” we know this is an evil man, a tyrant.

The Hebrew prophet gives us more clues. This “Gog” is going to be from the “land of Magog.” One has to do some historical detective work to determine what Magog is, but it is possible. Flavius Josephus, the first century Roman historian, wrote in his famous book, The Antiquities of the Jews, that the people of Magog are the people whom the Greeks called “Scythians.” This is a critical clue because we know from history that the Scythians were a people group that migrated from the Middle East northward and settled north of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in the region we know today as Russia and the former Soviet Republics.

There are other interesting clues, as well. Ezekiel 38:15 says that Gog “will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north.” Ezekiel 39:2 says Gog will come “from the remotest parts of the north” and come “against the mountains of Israel.” The country that is farthest to the north in relation to Israel is Russia....."

Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog:
WHAT IS THE “WAR OF GOG AND MAGOG”? Part One. Also: This blog launches in Hebrew « Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog (http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/what-is-the-war-of-gog-and-magog-part-one/)

[Guest]

I will make what I consider to be a very sound prediction. Obama will with the assistance of Irasel strike a blow against Iran. You may wonder why I can make such a bold prediction. The amswer is simple. Jews are bailing out of the Democratic Party in droves and moving to the Republican Party. So Obama is going to be forced to stop leading from behind....well he will still let Irasel take the lead until they are successful and then Obama will hog the cameras.

[Guest]

Bucco, your observations are right on target. I am also attacking the liberal media for their non-coverage of this story and their reporting of trash.

I applaud your comments.

I realize you are a real disadvantage only getting your news from Fox TV and The Villages Daily Sun, but the mainstream media has been covering this news all day on TV and on the front page of many newspapers.

[Guest]

I realize you are a real disadvantage only getting your news from Fox TV and The Villages Daily Sun, but the mainstream media has been covering this news all day on TV and on the front page of many newspapers.


First of all, take your sarcastic attitude someplace else..on here it is not appreciated.

You can be critical of Fox and The Villages at your whim, but do not have the concentrated gall to come on here with that kind of sarcasm.

Your posts are all the same...NON issue...love the President no matter what he does,and from my point of view, your total lack of anything makes anything you say totally invalid.

Please take your acid tongue somewhere else !!!!

[Guest]

First of all, take your sarcastic attitude someplace else..on here it is not appreciated.

You can be critical of Fox and The Villages at your whim, but do not have the concentrated gall to come on here with that kind of sarcasm.

Your posts are all the same...NON issue...love the President no matter what he does,and from my point of view, your total lack of anything makes anything you say totally invalid.

Please take your acid tongue somewhere else !!!!

A bit sensitive from the right wing huh? :ohdear:

[Guest]

I realize you are a real disadvantage only getting your news from Fox TV and The Villages Daily Sun, but the mainstream media has been covering this news all day on TV and on the front page of many newspapers.





Spot on post !!! Obviously, the cons spend their days reading World Net Daily and listening to Rush and Beck - otherwise, thery wouldn't be claiming this issue gets no attention. Every paper I read, and every news site I visit is covering the Iran developments.

The one area I agree with Ron Paul about - no more endeclared wars. Which is bad news for these chicken hawk, war mongering neocons.

[Guest]

A bit sensitive from the right wing huh? :ohdear:

ONLY....ONLY when a poster continually uses slanderous language toward anyone who disagrees with them and then adds a lot of sarcasim....BUT...AND PLEASE READ THIS FAR...

Most importantly when you make accusations and use sarcasm WITH ABSOLUTELY NO VIABLE LINKS OR INFORMATION to substantiate what you say. It has nothing to do with right or left and never has. It obviously has a lot to do with your thoughts.

To make light of the largest and most most popular news network and our local newspaper simply...well, I am confused as to the reason actually....but it just irks me.

If I am sensitive, and I will plead guilty to being such on this subject....it is simply because I have been here for a long time and have endured being called a racist because I did not bow at the feet of our President, yet I have never ever been disrespectful of him as a man in anyway. That is simply an example and surely not the total picture.

The poster you so gallantly defend has slandered the governor with NO facts and when disproved just moves along to make fun of somebody else.

Sorry if I offended you or anyone else...will take my leave

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

I will make what I consider to be a very sound prediction. Obama will with the assistance of Irasel strike a blow against Iran. You may wonder why I can make such a bold prediction. The amswer is simple. Jews are bailing out of the Democratic Party in droves and moving to the Republican Party. So Obama is going to be forced to stop leading from behind....well he will still let Irasel take the lead until they are successful and then Obama will hog the cameras.

I think the bottom line is that the Persians will attack our way of life whether it be Jewish, Catholic or WTF. We as Americans should get shoulder to shoulder against the foe. Can you argue with that?

[Guest]

Spot on post !!! Obviously, the cons spend their days reading World Net Daily and listening to Rush and Beck - otherwise, thery wouldn't be claiming this issue gets no attention. Every paper I read, and every news site I visit is covering the Iran developments.

The one area I agree with Ron Paul about - no more endeclared wars. Which is bad news for these chicken hawk, war mongering neocons.

actually I checked ABC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN and CBS the minute the sarcasm was delivered and ONLY CBS had it even on their front page.....

Why do you, who obviously is totally uninformed make such generalizations about people ? We, who you obviously feel are total idiots because of our political leaning are simply trying to keep up with you of such great intellectual prowess.

PLEASE do not lump me or anyone in a general statement as you just did. If you wish to contest somebodies post, do so without making the stupid comments that have lasted for years about Fox, Limbaugh, etc. It is insulting and points out that without those type of generalizations, you have nothing to say of import

[Guest]

I think the bottom line is that the Persians will attack our way of life whether it be Jewish, Catholic or WTF. We as Americans should get shoulder to shoulder against the foe. Can you argue with that?

Actually, I do stand concerned with what is in the Presidents mind and agenda when I listen over the years his defense of SOME religions and now this...

"Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees."

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/)

[Guest]

Actually, I do stand concerned with what is in the Presidents mind and agenda when I listen over the years his defense of SOME religions and now this...

"Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees."

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/)

The Persians and Muslims do not give a flip about Libs, Rightys. Dems or whatever. They want to kill you, yes kill you and your kids and baby grand kids. Wake up. Defend your country and way of life.

[Guest]

The Persians and Muslims do not give a flip about Libs, Rightys. Dems or whatever. They want to kill you, yes kill you and your kids and baby grand kids. Wake up. Defend your country and way of life.

:bigbow: :bigbow: :bigbow:

[Guest]

The Persians and Muslims do not give a flip about Libs, Rightys. Dems or whatever. They want to kill you, yes kill you and your kids and baby grand kids. Wake up. Defend your country and way of life.


I am sorry POSH as it appears I totally misread your post.

I do however agree with your sentiments and wonder why people do not take seriously the published, well circulated threats that have not cooled off with the threat of "talking to them" And before the comments about being a war monger, not me.....BUT we do have to stand up someday and face facts and deal with them in some fashion.

[Guest]

Actually, I do stand concerned with what is in the Presidents mind and agenda when I listen over the years his defense of SOME religions and now this...

"Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees."

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/)There are many justifyable reasons why Obama must go this November, toping the list with Obamacare, catastrophic stimulus spending and legislation that had to be passed to find out what was in it. But this issue violating Catholic's freedom of religion rights is in itself justification to send him into a happy retirement where we'll be contributing to his entitlement benefits for many years to come!

[Guest]

I know what he will do. He will "find"WMD's lie to congress and the American people and get us into another unfunded war so we can go deeper in debt.

[Guest]

There are many justifyable reasons why Obama must go this November, toping the list with Obamacare, catastrophic stimulus spending and legislation that had to be passed to find out what was in it. But this issue violating Catholic's freedom of religion rights is in itself justification to send him into a happy retirement where we'll be contributing to his entitlement benefits for many years to come!

BE aware SKYGUY, as I understand your newness to the political forum, that this news will be ignored by those who follow the Presidents dictates blindly. They have ignored the constant tricking out of information of the financial explosion that will accompany this health care bill.....and I must always mention that any bill done in backrooms with payoffs and blackmail involved as this one had....is just a bad bad bill.

This will crush us financially, and HAS AND NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH CONTROL OF HEALTH COSTS.

[Guest]

I know what he will do. He will "find"WMD's lie to congress and the American people and get us into another unfunded war so we can go deeper in debt.

and there we go...the Bush bashing that accompanies every criticism of the President when there is no response that can be given intelluctually.

Did you ever think that folks who oppose this terrible for america bill have legitimate questions on Iraq? By the way while I still have a few of my own I did a thorough investigation and conclude that if our government lied to promote this war, then every nation in the world was conned...every member of the other party was conned and if that is the case THAT is some big undertaking and accomplisment.

As always you over simplify

[Guest]

I am sorry POSH as it appears I totally misread your post.

I do however agree with your sentiments and wonder why people do not take seriously the published, well circulated threats that have not cooled off with the threat of "talking to them" And before the comments about being a war monger, not me.....BUT we do have to stand up someday and face facts and deal with them in some fashion.

On December 7th 1941 the talkers and diplomats got fooled. I'm hoping that no nation gets a leg up again. Let the CIA do their job.

[Guest]

I know what he will do. He will "find"WMD's lie to congress and the American people and get us into another unfunded war so we can go deeper in debt.

When you have Persians ready to change your way of life you think politics matter? You should get next to any American and hope we can kick some Muslim azz.

[Guest]

Bucco, Posh08 and skyguy79 ~

:bigbow: :bigbow: :bigbow:

[Guest]

I think the bottom line is that the Persians will attack our way of life whether it be Jewish, Catholic or WTF. We as Americans should get shoulder to shoulder against the foe. Can you argue with that?




A tad late with this remark - someone should have given this advice to Junior. When our foe was in the mountains of Afghanistan - Junior was invading Iraq.

It took a Dem. to put a dent in our foe.

[Guest]

A tad late with this remark - someone should have given this advice to Junior. When our foe was in the mountains of Afghanistan - Junior was invading Iraq.

It took a Dem. to put a dent in our foe.

Its not a remark. Its a f'nnn statement.

[Guest]

A tad late with this remark - someone should have given this advice to Junior. When our foe was in the mountains of Afghanistan - Junior was invading Iraq.

It took a Dem. to put a dent in our foe.


I assume you refer to our past President ? I have the habit of referring to all Presidents by name whether or not I agree with them or not. Was taught that was the correct way to act..you know..respect.

I think your timing is off....I think Afghanistan came before Iraq but thats ok....bashing Presidents by name calling if they are not in your party is a nice game folks like you play !!!!

[Guest]

I was raised to say President this or Senator that. Not the disrespectful and easy last name stuff. The JFK or LBJ was good. But then again I was raised below the Mason Dixon Line.

[Guest]

Jan - I realize you are a real disadvantage only getting your news from Fox TV and The Villages Daily Sun, but the mainstream media has been covering this news all day on TV and on the front page of many newspapers.

Dale - A bit sensitive from the right wing huh?
__________________

Coral - Spot on post !!! Obviously, the cons spend their days reading World Net Daily and listening to Rush and Beck - otherwise, thery wouldn't be claiming this issue gets no attention. Every paper I read, and every news site I visit is covering the Iran developments.

Wayne - I know what he will do. He will "find"WMD's lie to congress and the American people and get us into another unfunded war so we can go deeper in debt.

Coral - A tad late with this remark - someone should have given this advice to Junior. When our foe was in the mountains of Afghanistan - Junior was invading Iraq.

It took a Dem. to put a dent in our foe.

Do you guys have absolutely anything to ADD to this conversation?

Geeze...come on...Richie started an interesting thread...one that concerns all of us.

If you can't add anything close to intelligent comments, at least let this discussion continue without butting in with your sarcastic ones.

[Guest]

I was raised to say President this or Senator that. Not the disrespectful and easy last name stuff. The JFK or LBJ was good. But then again I was raised below the Mason Dixon Line.I was raised in the north and not taught that a president automatically deserved the kind of respect that is being discussed here, but they did teach me respect for others in general.

My parents were not political and had no real political opinions. My mother was however in absolute love with President Kennedy, but it was the kind of love IMO that influenced many to support President Obama, and not connected to any political views in any way that I ever knew of. My mother voted, but if she had political opinions, they were never voiced to me.

So I guess I feel a little different from you and Bucco in that my development taught me that respect is earned, not automatic... even for a President! Would I be disrespectful to the President like most of the Wall Street Protesters are to those they've encounter? No, I'd rather be respectful like most of the Tes Party people have been!

[Guest]

I was raised in the north and not taught that a president automatically deserved the kind of respect that is being discussed here, but they did teach me respect for others in general.

My parents were not political and had no real political opinions. My mother was however in absolute love with President Kennedy, but it was the kind of love IMO that influenced many to support President Obama, and not connected to any political views in any way that I ever knew of. My mother voted, but if she had political opinions, they were never voiced to me.

So I guess I feel a little different from you and Bucco in that my development taught me that respect is earned, not automatic... even for a President! Would I be disrespectful to the President like most of the Wall Street Protesters are to those they've encounter? No, I'd rather be respectful like most of the Tes Party people have been!

Mother warned me about Yankees. Hahaha

[Guest]

A tad late with this remark - someone should have given this advice to Junior. When our foe was in the mountains of Afghanistan - Junior was invading Iraq.

It took a Dem. to put a dent in our foe.Did you ever stop to realize that if President Clinton, during his term didn't blow the chance of getting OBL when he had the chance, that it wouldn't have taken so many years for it to finally get him and... there would have even been a chance that President GWB wouldn't have to go into Afghanistan; he might not even had to go into Iraq, but that would have been hard not to do since the intelligence that he and congress accepted indicated that there were WMD's, (hind site's 50/50) that Saddam was taunting American forces by constant violations over the no fly zone and that the UN went through many many resolutions unsuccessfully against Iraq over a period of at least 10 years without having the will to eventually enforce their own resolutions? And imagine if President Obama listened to his VP! OBL would probably still around today!

[Guest]

I realize you are a real disadvantage only getting your news from Fox TV and The Villages Daily Sun, but the mainstream media has been covering this news all day on TV and on the front page of many newspapers.

B.S., and you know it. Your insulting comments on my supposed sources of news is not appreciated, but I don't expect anything of real value in this forum from you anyway.

[Guest]

First of all, take your sarcastic attitude someplace else..on here it is not appreciated.

You can be critical of Fox and The Villages at your whim, but do not have the concentrated gall to come on here with that kind of sarcasm.

Your posts are all the same...NON issue...love the President no matter what he does,and from my point of view, your total lack of anything makes anything you say totally invalid.

Please take your acid tongue somewhere else !!!!

thank you

[Guest]

__________________







Do you guys have absolutely anything to ADD to this conversation?

Geeze...come on...Richie started an interesting thread...one that concerns all of us.

If you can't add anything close to intelligent comments, at least let this discussion continue without butting in with your sarcastic ones.

The libs on this thread don't really care about any of this. They are so busy happily humping Obama's leg that they can't think clearly anymore. It's the most pathetic situation I've every encountered. I thought the Clinton Kool-Aid years was bad, but it's absolutely nothing compared to this.

[Guest]

B.S., and you know it. Your insulting comments on my supposed sources of news is not appreciated, but I don't expect anything of real value in this forum from you anyway.

It was a joke. Lighten up.

[Guest]

Ultra-conservative & ultra-sensitive seem to go hand in hand. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

It was a joke. Lighten up.

You always seem to claim a joke when your affronts to people cause someone to call you on it.

It is not a joke when you make fun of people or make incredible false claims.

How you can find humor in that is strange !!

[Guest]

Ultra-conservative & ultra-sensitive seem to go hand in hand. :icon_wink:

A dumb comment.

From me, I have just gotten sick of the double standard...example.....I criticize President Obama and I am called a racist or a radical. Those who what to criticize President Bush find it funny to call him by various names instead of offering what they expect from anyone else on this President. Then the same people call for being civil....just plain dumb

I might add, that from my perspective, I also dont understand people who need to call folks they dont agree with by little cute names.....it is degrading to them and the poster in my opinion. These are the same people who DEMAND respect from others.

[Guest]

The Persians and Muslims do not give a flip about Libs, Rightys. Dems or whatever. They want to kill you, yes kill you and your kids and baby grand kids. Wake up. Defend your country and way of life.

Fact and yet so many don't seem to understand that.

[Guest]

B.S., and you know it. Your insulting comments on my supposed sources of news is not appreciated, but I don't expect anything of real value in this forum from you anyway.

Richie, Richie Richie. You know that only you hold the title as the best insulter on this site so don't give up the title so quick. You need not share it with anyone else.

:icon_wink:

[Guest]

A dumb comment.

From me, I have just gotten sick of the double standard...example.....I criticize President Obama and I am called a racist or a radical. Those who what to criticize President Bush find it funny to call him by various names instead of offering what they expect from anyone else on this President. Then the same people call for being civil....just plain dumb

I might add, that from my perspective, I also dont understand people who need to call folks they dont agree with by little cute names.....it is degrading to them and the poster in my opinion. These are the same people who DEMAND respect from others.:clap2:
Boy oh boy, can I understand that! I wasn't on the forum 48 hours and it was happening to me, not just degradation but out right lies too! Anyway, if nothing else, I can at least get a good laugh at them and counter the aggrivation they're trying to impose!

[Guest]

B.S., and you know it. Your insulting comments on my supposed sources of news is not appreciated, but I don't expect anything of real value in this forum from you anyway.Richie, Richie Richie. You know that only you hold the title as the best insulter on this site so don't give up the title so quick. You need not share it with anyone else.

:icon_wink:Belated Congratulation Richie! But perhaps you should really give the trophy back!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CFNM4c-GEaE/SfWrLxYUGFI/AAAAAAAAAJk/WAGKtf9DixU/s320/win.gif

[Guest]

Belated Congratulation Richie! But perhaps you should really give the trophy back!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CFNM4c-GEaE/SfWrLxYUGFI/AAAAAAAAAJk/WAGKtf9DixU/s320/win.gif

Thanks Sky, I appreciate the recognition. A big difference is I ,by and large, address the liberals as a group, and one or another of them take umbrage and attack me personally. I then might respond directly to that person and am then called "hateful", or some other name. There's a big difference there.

[Guest]

Thanks Sky, I appreciate the recognition. A big difference is I ,by and large, address the liberals as a group, and one or another of them take umbrage and attack me personally. I then might respond directly to that person and am then called "hateful", or some other name. There's a big difference there.I fully understand where you're coming from. The DNC must put out a manual to their base on how to do what liberals are doing and how to post even extremely loony, no sense nonsense posts. You see some of the unbelievable comments that are emerging on the new Voter Fraud thread? Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable!!!

Anyway, I've witnessed this kind of behavior for a long time in the media and I've personally experienced it extensively on Facebook where I'm a whole lot more political that I am here... a whole lot more! On Facebook however, there are people that would made the antics on here look like amateur hour, probably because there are rules that hold them back. They do try to stretch the line of the rules, but it does at least hold them back somewhat.

On Facebook and through personal emails, I've dumped a total of 3 friends so far, friends that I actually know personally and just because they had to resort to being nasty and insulting. Couldn't care less though because a friend that get as nasty and insult, like they did, have no character and are no friend anyway!

So enjoy your trophy and don't let them take that away from you like their the mostly liberal government officials take and wastes your tax dollars! :)

[Guest]

It took a Dem. to put a dent in our foe.

Actualy it took the United States Special Operations Group to put a "dent in our for." Facts are facts, didn't matter who was in office at the time, its the military that does the work.

[Guest]

I was raised to say President this or Senator that. Not the disrespectful and easy last name stuff. The JFK or LBJ was good. But then again I was raised below the Mason Dixon Line.

Can you tell me what states are separated by the Mason Dixon Line?

I know but do you.

[Guest]

Can you tell me what states are separated by the Mason Dixon Line?

I know but do you.

Yes....Mason and Dixon:a040:

[Guest]

Yes....Mason and Dixon:a040:

Now can you tell me who was buried in Grant's tomb?

[Guest]

Yes....Mason and Dixon:a040:

You must be referring to the other 7 states that our leader thinks are states, is this the name of two of them. I see that you also don't know what states are separated by the Mason Dixon Line. Google it, learn something new today.

[Guest]

Yes....Mason and Dixon:a040:

Hey...I resemble that comment . . . :icon_wink:

[Guest]

Now can you tell me who was buried in Grant's tomb?

No one, Grant is not buried. He is above ground.

[Guest]

Bucco, your observations are right on target. I am also attacking the liberal media for their non-coverage of this story and their reporting of trash.

I applaud your comments.

Oh my goodness! This kinda sounds like The Villages Daily Sun is liberal media?????

[Guest]

There are many justifyable reasons why Obama must go this November, toping the list with Obamacare, catastrophic stimulus spending and legislation that had to be passed to find out what was in it. But this issue violating Catholic's freedom of religion rights is in itself justification to send him into a happy retirement where we'll be contributing to his entitlement benefits for many years to come!,

skyguy: Unfortunately far too many people do not understand what Obama is trying to create here. We are fortunate that the Supreme Court 9-0 pushed back on Obama and his Administration concerning the Hosanna v EEOC case because if they ruled in Obama's favor then it would have removed the buffer between individuals and the state. The Catholic issue you raised is another attempt;albeit for different reasons. If this law is allowed to stand then what is next Catholic agency can't operate adoption agencies unless they allow gay couples to adopt. The Boy Scouts viewed as a religious organization won't be allowed to assemble, etc.......................

Clearly Obama and his Admin believe and speak of the "freedom to worship" whereas the majority of us see it broader as the "freedom of religion' Why the difference ....Obama said it best during his 2008 campaign when he talked about those "small town Americansas bitter people clinging to guns and religion".

Meanwhile Joe Biden, a Catholic has bowed his head in shame at Obama's antics.

The american people chose wrong in 2008

[Guest]

Well, it seems as though the Republicans are talking religion and morality once again. Bring up David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Mark Folley and see their reactions.

[Guest]

Well, it seems as though the Republicans are talking religion and morality once again. Bring up David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Mark Folley and see their reactions.

We're talking about the greater morality here, and you're bringing up the names of individuals who failed in their personal morality as if that negates the debate. Just because someone may fail in his own morality doesn't make the strive for morality pointless.

[Guest]

,

skyguy: Unfortunately far too many people do not understand what Obama is trying to create here. We are fortunate that the Supreme Court 9-0 pushed back on Obama and his Administration concerning the Hosanna v EEOC case because if they ruled in Obama's favor then it would have removed the buffer between individuals and the state. The Catholic issue you raised is another attempt;albeit for different reasons. If this law is allowed to stand then what is next Catholic agency can't operate adoption agencies unless they allow gay couples to adopt. The Boy Scouts viewed as a religious organization won't be allowed to assemble, etc.......................

Clearly Obama and his Admin believe and speak of the "freedom to worship" whereas the majority of us see it broader as the "freedom of religion' Why the difference ....Obama said it best during his 2008 campaign when he talked about those "small town Americansas bitter people clinging to guns and religion".

Meanwhile Joe Biden, a Catholic has bowed his head in shame at Obama's antics.

The american people chose wrong in 2008

One correction... The American people and dead people chose wrong in 2008! :clap2:

Well, it seems as though the Republicans are talking religion and morality once again. Bring up David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Mark Folley and see their reactions.I don't know what thread you're confusing this one with, but people here are speaking about freedom of religion. The only one speaking morality here is you and I for one couldn't care less if President Kennedy had a mistress, President Carter had lust in his heart or if President Clinton got his pipes blown out in the White House. Gee, being you're the one speaking morality, does that mean that you're a Republican? :duck:

[Guest]

We're talking about the greater morality here, and you're bringing up the names of individuals who failed in their personal morality as if that negates the debate. Just because someone may fail in his own morality doesn't make the strive for morality pointless.Gosh, after reading your post, maybe Buggy was right that we're talking morality after all! :coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Gosh, after reading your post, maybe Buggy was right that we're talking morality after all! :coolsmiley:

Or maybe I just like throwing the football with Buggy. It's a hobby of mine:)

[Guest]

That's why we all think of RichieLion as the Tom Brady of The Watering Hole.

[Guest]

that's why we all think of richielion as the tom brady of the watering hole.

ooowwwwww!!!

[Guest]

personally, as a devout Catholic, i would like the church to refuse the federal funds and maintain its integrity. as an American taxpayer, i do not know why federal tax dollars are going to any religious institution to begin with...is this an opening for our tax dollars funding muslim schools which teach hate, or Jewish hospitals which perform abortions, or any other group doing any other thing which the taxpayer himself may not wish to support? we are spending billions rebuilding churches and mosques overseas! why???? the federal govt has its tentacles into areas where it does not belong... Get It Out!

[Guest]

I think you give Panetta too much credit. I don't believe the President will stand by Israel. He's shown no predilection to do so up to this point.

Will he take a stand for Israel to enhance his election chances? Maybe, but it would be antithetical to every action he's taken toward Israel up to this point.My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. It may raise the question of to what degree the U.S., in it's current military and financial situation, should unconditionally pledge support to a government which has shown no cooperation towards our government. Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East, regardless of our wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may find that what goes around comes around.

[Guest]

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. It may raise the question of to what degree the U.S., in it's current military and financial situation, should unconditionally pledge support to a government which has shown no cooperation towards our government. Israel's primary objectives seem to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East, regardless of our wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may find that what goes around comes around.

Unbelievable. Nice to know where you stand, though. I knew I had your motives pegged correctly in your thread.

[Guest]

personally, as a devout Catholic, or Jewish hospitals which perform abortions,

Do you have a problem with Jewish hospitals? I know many devout Catholics that are Democrats and who supports aboration the most, I would venture to say the Democrats, right. Before you single out anyone religion check all the facts, there are many more Jews that are against abortion that for it.

[Guest]

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. It may raise the question of to what degree the U.S., in it's current military and financial situation, should unconditionally pledge support to a government which has shown no cooperation towards our government. Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East, regardless of our wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu may find that what goes around comes around.


" Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East,"

My initial response would be to ask you for some credible evidence for this statement, and I still would like to see that...but as I think about it, that sentence fits a large number of countries...actually, it is difficult to think of a country that the definition does not fit.

"My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly."

It is quite scare to think that our foreign policy would be determined by how our representatives are treated and that personal likes and dislikes would trump what is best for tjis country and the world.


VK....if I misread what you are saying, let me know but I found your post to be rather shocking.

[Guest]

figmo, i have nothing against Jewish people, my point is that religious institutions already are tax exempt, so why should ANY of them receive funding from the federal govt? there are bound to be activities of various religious groups to which taxpayers of another religion might object. it is a way for the govt to try to control and manipulate the churches, and it should stop!

[Guest]

Or maybe I just like throwing the football with Buggy. It's a hobby of mine:)But is it really fun when an opposing team continually fumbles the ball and your team keeps scoring touchdown after touchdown? Just wondering!

http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/upfiles/smiley/unsure.gif

[Guest]

" Israel's primary objectives seems to have become continuing to seek more financial aid and weapons from the U.S., while pursuing its own political agenda in the Middle East,"

My initial response would be to ask you for some credible evidence for this statement, and I still would like to see that...but as I think about it, that sentence fits a large number of countries...actually, it is difficult to think of a country that the definition does not fit.

"My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly."

It is quite scare to think that our foreign policy would be determined by how our representatives are treated and that personal likes and dislikes would trump what is best for tjis country and the world.


VK....if I misread what you are saying, let me know but I found your post to be rather shocking.You're absolutely correct, Bucco. It's a longstanding adage among foreign policy makers that sovereign countries have no friends. They have allies and enemies, both of which can and do change from time to time.

In this case, people defend Israel because they are our only friend in the Middle East. They were a lot more friendly during the time we propped them up as a newly-formed country, providing financial aid and arms. Their economy and defense system is now quite mature. Their economy is providing plenty of opportunity and a reasonably high standard of living for all Israelis. But even though their economy is even stronger than our own, only a fraction of the size of course, they still express the need for our foreign aid.

Some people here have said that we should eliminate all foreign aid payments. I wonder if they realize that 80% of U.S. foreign aid payments go to Israel?

Weapons? Of course we continue to supply Israel with weapons. Oh, the accounting ledger will show that they buy the fighter planes, tanks, electronics, etc., mostly from U.S. manufacturers. But paying for the weapons with what? The money we give them in foreign aid, of course! Does anyone realize that the total of our foreign aid to Israel is more than their entire defense budget? Does anyone realize that Israel spends about 50% more on defense as a percentage of their GDP than we do? Think about that.

So for all that, should we expect more cooperation from Israel? Should we expect to have a say in the way they conduct themselves as a nation if it places the U.S. or Americans in greater peril? Do you remember when the entire general staff of our military made a special visit to the White House to argue that Israel's military conduct was putting American soldiers serving in the Middle East in significantly greater peril? Do you remember when Vice President Biden made a 14-hour trip to Israel to meet with Netenyahu only to find that he wouldn't even meet with him, assigning an Israeli minister to meet with the American Vice President? Both those events happened less than a year ago.

I would say that we should have a say in how Israel conducts it's affairs. The U.S. has bought and paid for Israel's allegiance and cooperation. They are an ally in the Middle East, but the way they have conducted themselves in recent years makes them a long way from a being a "friend". I believe we should treat them as an ally, applying whatever political, economic and security pressure necessary to achieve American foreign policy objectives.

And if President Obama, Vice President Biden and Hillary Clinton don't forget being publicly embarrassed by Benjamin Netanyahu the next time Israel asks for more aid or weapons, I wouldn't blame them. They should treat Israel and it's government with American interests as their first and foremost objective. Period!

[Guest]

My guess is that neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have forgotten the fact that Netenyahu stiffed them both very publicly. I'm not questioning the validity of what you state here, but it certainly doesn't help when you have a president so inept as to make the kind of gaff he did as described on this page: Obama Embarrasses America and Belittles Our Ally Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel (http://waznmentobe.com/uncategorized/obama-embarrasses-america-and-belittles-our-ally-prime-minister-netanyahu-and-israel.html) :ohdear:

[Guest]

First of all, take your sarcastic attitude someplace else..on here it is not appreciated.

You can be critical of Fox and The Villages at your whim, but do not have the concentrated gall to come on here with that kind of sarcasm.

Your posts are all the same...NON issue...love the President no matter what he does,and from my point of view, your total lack of anything makes anything you say totally invalid.

Please take your acid tongue somewhere else !!!!

So many posts here are sarcastic....why do you pick on this guy? Spread your comments evenly across the right wing posters whose acid tongues we have to tolerate over and over again.....

[Guest]

So many posts here are sarcastic....why do you pick on this guy? Spread your comments evenly across the right wing posters whose acid tongues we have to tolerate over and over again.....



My criticism is ONLY and TOTALLY aimed at those who villify other people or institutions WITH ABSOLUTELY FREE REIGN, NOT EVEN SUPPLYING WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THAT.

It is also reserved for those who make CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS as this poster has done about public people and when proven to be 100% false, just jump to another thread and another person to attack.

Frankly, while this forum has been for years full of a bit of sarcasm and the such, this poster and a few others take it to an extreme.

[Guest]

personally, as a devout Catholic, i would like the church to refuse the federal funds and maintain its integrity. as an American taxpayer, i do not know why federal tax dollars are going to any religious institution to begin with...is this an opening for our tax dollars funding muslim schools which teach hate, or Jewish hospitals which perform abortions, or any other group doing any other thing which the taxpayer himself may not wish to support? we are spending billions rebuilding churches and mosques overseas! why???? the federal govt has its tentacles into areas where it does not belong... Get It Out!

Your church, on the other hand, is trying to force IT's beliefs onto the rest of us. I am OK with abortions being peformed...you are not. When your church stops trying to legislate morality, then there is a commonality for discussion. I have nothing against catholics...I got one my degrees at Loyola University and am still friends with some of the people I met there.

This whole thing is a slippery slope....in a country with many different points of view you MUST be willing to accept some things you do not like just like others have to accept things you want and they don't. It will never be all the way you believe and it will never be all the way I believe. I am more then willing to accept or at least tolerate different tenets than I believe.

Not allowing stem cell research for 8 years has seriously hampered scientific advancements...many many lives were negatively affected. And please, do not make this another forum for abortion discussions. I do believe that has been played out again and again in this forum and I don't think anyone really wants to hear it hashed out again.

[Guest]

Some people here have said that we should eliminate all foreign aid payments. I wonder if they realize that 80% of U.S. foreign aid payments go to Israel?

I don't think you're referring to me because nowhere did I say "all" foreign aid.

Also you're falsely reporting that Israel receive 80% of U.S. aid. You've either made a huge mistake or are purposely lying about that. I don't know which.

Israel may get, at most, 30% of U.S. foreign aid, and is the only country that really needs our foreign aid in regard to it tenuous hold in hostile territory.

Pretty much all other recipients are wealthy enough not to deserve further cash from us.

[Guest]

Somewhere,and I am sorry..not sure where, I read that about 1/3....33% of our foreign aid goes to a combination of Israel and Egypt !

[Guest]

Your church, on the other hand, is trying to force IT's beliefs onto the rest of us.Let's see!

The beliefs/morality you speak of orginated in 1973 with the landmark decision in Roe vs. Wade.
The beliefs/morality Catholics have are centuries old.

You say the church is forcing their morality on everybody.
The church is only exercising their freedom of religion rights.

You imply the church prevents you and others from exercising your rights.
The church cannot prevent you or anybody from excersing your rights... elsewhere.

Whose trying to force their beliefs on others?
It sure ain't the church, by a long shot. That's for sure! :ohdear:

[Guest]

Let's see!

The beliefs/morality you speak of orginated in 1973 with the landmark decision in Roe vs. Wade.
The beliefs/morality Catholics have are centuries old.

You say the church is forcing their morality on everybody.
The church is only exercising their freedom of religion rights.

You imply the church prevents you and others from exercising your rights.
The church cannot prevent you or anybody from excersing your rights... elsewhere.

Whose trying to force their beliefs on others?
It sure ain't the church, by a long shot. That's for sure! :ohdear:

You will not get much of a response to this......those who think our society is moving forward with its degradation just ignore this because it seems to be all about them. Meanwhile the entire society gets weaker and we charge those with morals to be bigots. If you dont agree with them, those who are into the self indulgence, then you just dont get it. The elitist just dont get it.

And it is not important whether you agree with the Catholic church teachings.....it is that you DONT CARE about them...now the same folks will come on here and defend other religions right to do anything because it does not threaten their self indulgence.

[Guest]

I don't think you're referring to me because nowhere did I say "all" foreign aid.

Also you're falsely reporting that Israel receive 80% of U.S. aid. You've either made a huge mistake or are purposely lying about that. I don't know which.

Israel may get, at most, 30% of U.S. foreign aid, and is the only country that really needs our foreign aid in regard to it tenuous hold in hostile territory.

Pretty much all other recipients are wealthy enough not to deserve further cash from us.Total U.S. foreign aid payments in 2009 were slightly more than $25 billion. Foreign aid to Israel in 2009 was $20 billion. Israel's defense budget was $19.8 billion.

Look it up, Richie. 30%? Where the heck did that come from?

[Guest]

Total U.S. foreign aid payments in 2009 were slightly more than $25 billion. Foreign aid to Israel in 2009 was $20 billion. Israel's defense budget was $19.8 billion.

Look it up, Richie. 30%? Where the heck did that come from?

I did look it up. You post a government link that shows 80%. Put up, or shut up. I won't take your numbers above as factual when they're undocumented.

[Guest]

Skyguy. Having been raised a Catholic, let me tell you what the Church would do if they had their way.

Abortions would be illegal.
Contraception would be illegal.
No stores would be open on Sunday. (This was true in Massachusetts until the 1980s)
Women would still be considered property of their husbands.

Going back a little ways, let's not forget that Prohibition was for everyone - except the Church.

If we REALLY went far back in time...
Inquisitions would be legal.
Witchcraft would be an offense.

Let's remember that it wasn't until the 1990s that the Catholic Church admitted that Galileo was right.

These are just more examples of the reasons that I can't stand the *heirarchy* of the Church. To be fair, the priests I've known in my life are some of the best people I've ever met. But the further away you get from the 'ground troops', the more corruption there seems to be.

[Guest]

Education, Science, Research, Improvement, Modernization, etc. etc. in my mind are good things.

Hanging onto disproved Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences, etc. etc. are bad things.

[Guest]

Education, Science, Research, Improvement, Modernization, etc. etc. in my mind are good things.

Hanging onto disproved Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences, etc. etc. are bad things.

No bigotry in this post...no sireeeee

[Guest]

Education, Science, Research, Improvement, Modernization, etc. etc. in my mind are good things.

Hanging onto disproved Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences, etc. etc. are bad things.

No bigotry in this post...no sireeeee

Bucco, you understood the point that this guy is making? I know it a mean spirited post, but I don't quite get the point of his prejudice in this one, I have to admit. Exactly what he is referring to is escaping me.

It obvious that it reeks with some hatred, but I can't get a real handle on the correlation of his first statement and his second.

[Guest]

Bucco, you understood the point that this guy is making? I know it a mean spirited post, but I don't quite get the point of his prejudice in this one, I have to admit. Exactly what he is referring to is escaping me.

It obvious that it reeks with some hatred, but I can't get a real handle on the correlation of his first statement and his second.


I think he is referring to the post by DJPLONG who talked about where we might be if the Catholic Church had their way...which by the way much of what he says would be fantastic, but we pretty much all know that DJPLONG has a "thing" with the church.

The VILLAGER2 post is just agreeing with it, and of course since he has a problem with Santorum (who in case you didnt know is a bigot) he applies his "NON bigotory" coments !!!

[Guest]

I think he is referring to the post by DJPLONG who talked about where we might be if the Catholic Church had their way...which by the way much of what he says would be fantastic, but we pretty much all know that DJPLONG has a "thing" with the church.

The VILLAGER2 post is just agreeing with it, and of course since he has a problem with Santorum (who in case you didnt know is a bigot) he applies his "NON bigotory" coments !!!

Thanks buddy. I'm better when people post the quotes they're referring to as i mostly just read the last page and don't always go back and read everything again to put late posts in their proper context.

I appreciate the response.

[Guest]

Bucco, you understood the point that this guy is making? I know it a mean spirited post, but I don't quite get the point of his prejudice in this one, I have to admit. Exactly what he is referring to is escaping me.

It obvious that it reeks with some hatred, but I can't get a real handle on the correlation of his first statement and his second.

Sorry if I am talking over anyones head. I am just trying to point out that Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences of others is a common GOP trait and is not a good thing. If I can help further, please feel free to PM me for one on one counseling.

[Guest]

I know what he will do. He will "find"WMD's lie to congress and the American people and get us into another unfunded war so we can go deeper in debt.

Sounds familiar......

[Guest]

Let's see!

The beliefs/morality you speak of orginated in 1973 with the landmark decision in Roe vs. Wade.
The beliefs/morality Catholics have are centuries old.

You say the church is forcing their morality on everybody.
The church is only exercising their freedom of religion rights.

You imply the church prevents you and others from exercising your rights.
The church cannot prevent you or anybody from excersing your rights... elsewhere.

Whose trying to force their beliefs on others?
It sure ain't the church, by a long shot. That's for sure! :ohdear:

This is so simple. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one.
You have no right to tell others they can not.

If you don't believe in birth control....don't use it.
Don't tell others they can no.

The corollary to this is...are you going to pony up the funds to support these children that families do not have the resources to raise? You kind of don't like any social programs far as I can tell. You explain to me how we are going to care for these children...or does your support end when they are born?

So very simple...really, it is.

[Guest]

Sorry if I am talking over anyones head. I am just trying to point out that Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences of others is a common GOP trait and is not a good thing. If I can help further, please feel free to PM me for one on one counseling.

Please validate your charge and allow any who wish to match anything you say with Dem antics !!!

All of this party generalization is just plain a waste of time....it is nothing but political slander of the worst kind

[Guest]

Sorry if I am talking over anyones head. I am just trying to point out that Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences of others is a common GOP trait and is not a good thing. If I can help further, please feel free to PM me for one on one counseling.

I only ask questions from people I can respect the answer of. I do not ask questions of a malicious muckraker.

[Guest]

This is so simple. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one.

It's my duty to object to the murder of children, and to try to educate those who don't see that child's humanity. I don't devalue your life, and I certainly won't devalue the life of the child you would so carelessly and callously discard.

[Guest]

Richie: I hope we can keep this civil. But let me outline where I think we agree and disagree a little.

You believe in "it's a child at conception"? Honest question - but that's what I'm led to understand based on your posts. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The equivalent of my belief is - at that moment - it's a blueprint. It's a single-cell organism that has the possibility to become a child - and there are a lot of things working against it before you get to things like abortions and IUDs.

By the same token, the idea of walking into some clinic when you're practically at term for an abortion (which pretty much doesn't happen because every state has restrictions on late-term abortions - which Roe v. Wade allows) is repugnant to me.

I've had to clean up the results of a miscarriage. And that's as graphic as I hope to get on this subject. I'd be lying if I said that didn't influence my opinions.

The overwhelming percentage of abortions are done in the first trimester - usually in the 2nd month. Pro-lifers will try to point out there there could be a beating heart later in that trimester. Pro-choicers will point out that it's a single-chamber heart (less developed than a frog's) and that, on sight, you wouldn't be able to visually tell the difference between a human and chicken embryo. ...and so begins the politicizing, the shouting, screaming, protesting, etc, etc.

I see reasons why couples (or single women for that matter) could be forced by situation into later term abortions. Anencephaly, Tay-Sachs - things like that. At that point, I have a disconnect with more social conservatives who would not only ban such abortions but also don't want to pay for the extraordinary health care costs that SOMEONE will have to pay if these go to term. I don't mean to be snarky, but not everyone has a Senator's health care plan.

I won't argue that some are careless and "callously" discard what they're carrying, whether you consider it a child or even only potential. But, in my experience, it's not always like that. In fact, in my experience, it's a VERY serious decision. And, yes, I've been confronted with it personally. When you have to make that decision. WHaen you're barely scraping by and you just discovered that the treatments you just had that ran all kinds of radiation through you were done when you didn't know that you were just a couple days pregnant.. When the doctor tells you what the odds are. Well, let's say that you have some SERIOUS thinking to do.

And, staying on that personal note, we DID have another child afterwards when things were a LOT more stable. Our 2nd daughter was planned, wanted, loved and is now in college working her tail off to pay tuition.

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is that it's more than the slogans thrown around on both sides. ABortion isn't the disease - it's the symptom. You get a better way of preventing unwanted pregnancies and you'll "cure" abortion. I will agree with you in one area where I *think* we agree. Every child should be wanted and loved.

[Guest]

How can you legitimately take traits that apply to any population at large and make it specific to any particular group merely to facilitate your position?

("I am just trying to point out that Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences of others is a common GOP trait and is not a good thing.")

These are traits of humans. It is good there are differences. Also infers Dems specifically as well as any group other than GOP do not have these traits which is blatantly obviously incorrect!




btk

[Guest]

Richie: I hope we can keep this civil. But let me outline where I think we agree and disagree a little.

You believe in "it's a child at conception"? Honest question - but that's what I'm led to understand based on your posts. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The equivalent of my belief is - at that moment - it's a blueprint. It's a single-cell organism that has the possibility to become a child - and there are a lot of things working against it before you get to things like abortions and IUDs.

By the same token, the idea of walking into some clinic when you're practically at term for an abortion (which pretty much doesn't happen because every state has restrictions on late-term abortions - which Roe v. Wade allows) is repugnant to me.

I've had to clean up the results of a miscarriage. And that's as graphic as I hope to get on this subject. I'd be lying if I said that didn't influence my opinions.

The overwhelming percentage of abortions are done in the first trimester - usually in the 2nd month. Pro-lifers will try to point out there there could be a beating heart later in that trimester. Pro-choicers will point out that it's a single-chamber heart (less developed than a frog's) and that, on sight, you wouldn't be able to visually tell the difference between a human and chicken embryo. ...and so begins the politicizing, the shouting, screaming, protesting, etc, etc.

I see reasons why couples (or single women for that matter) could be forced by situation into later term abortions. Anencephaly, Tay-Sachs - things like that. At that point, I have a disconnect with more social conservatives who would not only ban such abortions but also don't want to pay for the extraordinary health care costs that SOMEONE will have to pay if these go to term. I don't mean to be snarky, but not everyone has a Senator's health care plan.

I won't argue that some are careless and "callously" discard what they're carrying, whether you consider it a child or even only potential. But, in my experience, it's not always like that. In fact, in my experience, it's a VERY serious decision. And, yes, I've been confronted with it personally. When you have to make that decision. WHaen you're barely scraping by and you just discovered that the treatments you just had that ran all kinds of radiation through you were done when you didn't know that you were just a couple days pregnant.. When the doctor tells you what the odds are. Well, let's say that you have some SERIOUS thinking to do.

And, staying on that personal note, we DID have another child afterwards when things were a LOT more stable. Our 2nd daughter was planned, wanted, loved and is now in college working her tail off to pay tuition.

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is that it's more than the slogans thrown around on both sides. ABortion isn't the disease - it's the symptom. You get a better way of preventing unwanted pregnancies and you'll "cure" abortion. I will agree with you in one area where I *think* we agree. Every child should be wanted and loved.

DJ, you throw around a lot of words and scenarios but it's not a complicated thing. You talked about some things here that I will just say it's a matter of the"intent". What is the intent of the person? You can figure out yourself from your personal experiences and your suppositions above what the intent was. Was it an accidental or unknowable situation that results in the death of the innocent life, or was it the reasoned destruction of it?

You say "every child should be wanted and loved".

That statement is something every pro-life advocate has been preaching from the beginning. I just wish you meant it in it's truest sense.

[Guest]

How can you legitimately take traits that apply to any population at large and make it specific to any particular group merely to facilitate your position?

("I am just trying to point out that Superstitions, Quackery, Non-acceptance of Differences of others is a common GOP trait and is not a good thing.")

These are traits of humans. It is good there are differences. Also infers Dems specifically as well as any group other than GOP do not have these traits which is blatantly obviously incorrect!




btk

I am not sure I am correct, I come to this maybe because I am a conservative, Christian, Republican and therefore I hear things that are a little out there from my like personal friends. Its like racial jokes, I hear them all the time form my conservative friends, but I have noticed over the years, I rarely hear off color jokes, or condemnation of the poor from liberals. Maybe because they know me and will not open up to a conservative or maybe because they are in fact more in tune to kind thinking over logic. I don't know.

[Guest]

I am not sure I am correct, I come to this maybe because I am a conservative, Christian, Republican and therefore I hear things that are a little out there from my like personal friends. Its like racial jokes, I hear them all the time form my conservative friends, but I have noticed over the years, I rarely hear off color jokes, or condemnation of the poor from liberals. Maybe because they know me and will not open up to a conservative or maybe because they are in fact more in tune to kind thinking over logic. I don't know.

I've got to stop reading your posts while I have coffee in my mouth.
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad51/wakytimes/spittake.gif

[Guest]

I've got to stop reading your posts while I have coffee in my mouth.
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad51/wakytimes/spittake.gif

Hee Hee Hee

[Guest]

I am not sure I am correct, I come to this maybe because I am a conservative, Christian, Republican and therefore I hear things that are a little out there from my like personal friends. Its like racial jokes, I hear them all the time form my conservative friends, but I have noticed over the years, I rarely hear off color jokes, or condemnation of the poor from liberals. Maybe because they know me and will not open up to a conservative or maybe because they are in fact more in tune to kind thinking over logic. I don't know.

This post has really lost touch with reality....will be amazing if anyone even takes time to read your posts from now on, coffee or not...you have totally lost touch with reality !

[Guest]

This post has really lost touch with reality....will be amazing if anyone even takes time to read your posts from now on, coffee or not...you have totally lost touch with reality !

You've hit that nail squarely. That's why I made my "spit-take" comment.

[Guest]

Ultra-conservative & ultra-sensitive seem to go hand in hand. :icon_wink:

Amen---what is good for the goose is good for the gander. They can shovel it out but heaven help you if you disagree!!!

[Guest]

Let's see!

The beliefs/morality you speak of orginated in 1973 with the landmark decision in Roe vs. Wade.
The beliefs/morality Catholics have are centuries old.

You say the church is forcing their morality on everybody.
The church is only exercising their freedom of religion rights.

You imply the church prevents you and others from exercising your rights.
The church cannot prevent you or anybody from excersing your rights... elsewhere.

Whose trying to force their beliefs on others?
It sure ain't the church, by a long shot. That's for sure! :ohdear:

I am a pretty live and let live person...I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone...I am trying to protect mine. The church can make as many rules as they like for their followers. But that is as far as the rules should go. And come on, people follow the rules they like and break the ones they don't and get very creative in their reasons why they are exempt. That is human nature. There is no way around that.

[Guest]

SkyGuy,

What percentage of Catholic women use birth control of some kind - yet that is forbidden by the Catholic Church? Since the Middle Ages, Catholics have used some form of birth control (except Rick Santorum, obviously).

CeeJay and others have indicated that even though they are Catholic, they and their priests have said their own decisions are between them and God. Keep government OUT of the woman's right to choose!

Like Ladydoc has stated, are YOU willing to provide all the means of support for a child that cannot be cared for? From some of your previous posts, I think the answer is NO. I might be mistaken on that but keep it to yourself.

According to the tenets of the Catholic Church, any form of birth control is a sin. The Pope even preached that in Africa recently. How archaiac can a person be?

I do not think the government should force a woman to have a child if she does not want it. It is a woman's own personal choice. Let it be.

No, I do not want to hear "abortion is murder". It is not - so do not say it. Roe vs Wade made abortion legal. Case closed.

[Guest]

Richie: I hope we can keep this civil. But let me outline where I think we agree and disagree a little.

You believe in "it's a child at conception"? Honest question - but that's what I'm led to understand based on your posts. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The equivalent of my belief is - at that moment - it's a blueprint. It's a single-cell organism that has the possibility to become a child - and there are a lot of things working against it before you get to things like abortions and IUDs.

By the same token, the idea of walking into some clinic when you're practically at term for an abortion (which pretty much doesn't happen because every state has restrictions on late-term abortions - which Roe v. Wade allows) is repugnant to me.

I've had to clean up the results of a miscarriage. And that's as graphic as I hope to get on this subject. I'd be lying if I said that didn't influence my opinions.

The overwhelming percentage of abortions are done in the first trimester - usually in the 2nd month. Pro-lifers will try to point out there there could be a beating heart later in that trimester. Pro-choicers will point out that it's a single-chamber heart (less developed than a frog's) and that, on sight, you wouldn't be able to visually tell the difference between a human and chicken embryo. ...and so begins the politicizing, the shouting, screaming, protesting, etc, etc.

I see reasons why couples (or single women for that matter) could be forced by situation into later term abortions. Anencephaly, Tay-Sachs - things like that. At that point, I have a disconnect with more social conservatives who would not only ban such abortions but also don't want to pay for the extraordinary health care costs that SOMEONE will have to pay if these go to term. I don't mean to be snarky, but not everyone has a Senator's health care plan.

I won't argue that some are careless and "callously" discard what they're carrying, whether you consider it a child or even only potential. But, in my experience, it's not always like that. In fact, in my experience, it's a VERY serious decision. And, yes, I've been confronted with it personally. When you have to make that decision. WHaen you're barely scraping by and you just discovered that the treatments you just had that ran all kinds of radiation through you were done when you didn't know that you were just a couple days pregnant.. When the doctor tells you what the odds are. Well, let's say that you have some SERIOUS thinking to do.

And, staying on that personal note, we DID have another child afterwards when things were a LOT more stable. Our 2nd daughter was planned, wanted, loved and is now in college working her tail off to pay tuition.

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is that it's more than the slogans thrown around on both sides. ABortion isn't the disease - it's the symptom. You get a better way of preventing unwanted pregnancies and you'll "cure" abortion. I will agree with you in one area where I *think* we agree. Every child should be wanted and loved.

djplong~ Here's a scenario for you...You are a single lady who has been told that she will never be able to conceive. You have known your fiance for 5 years when you find out that you are indeed pregnant. Happily you inform the fiance that the impossible has now become possible. He sternly informs you that he doesn't want children and begins to write the check to "take care" of this...ie, get the abortion. After you refuse, he walks out of your life. You have no parents left in your life to assist you, and it is in an era where unwed pregnancies are not the norm yet. Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!! So....you pick yourself up by the boot straps as you were raised to do, you carry this innocent life to completion. You struggle to make ends meet and give this child the best life has to offer. She grows up to be a beautiful, intelligent woman with 5 children of her own-to whom she is a wonderful mother. You do all of this because it is the right thing to do, because we are civilized humans not barbarians, because greater love has no man than to lay down his life for another...
I am that woman, so don't give us that selfish "life was tough at that moment" garbage. We can accomplish great feats of love, when we CHOOSE to. It ain't always easy, but it is ALWAYS worth it!

[Guest]

Katz,
Good for you. Your mother made a choice. She had a choice. The Republicans including Santorum and Romney do NOT want a woman to have a choice. Roe vs Wade is the law of the land. Women do have a choice. Keep it that way.

[Guest]

Katz,
Good for you. Your mother made a choice. She had a choice. The Republicans including Santorum and Romney do NOT want a woman to have a choice. Roe vs Wade is the law of the land. Women do have a choice. Keep it that way.

Apparently, my mother wasn't a barbarian either. There never was a choice to be made as far as she was concerned, because LIFE BEGINS @ CONCEPTION. When this selfish generation wakes up to this fact, maybe they will be able to be BLESSED by CHOOSING LIFE, TOO.

[Guest]

SkyGuy,

What percentage of Catholic women use birth control of some kind - yet that is forbidden by the Catholic Church? Since the Middle Ages, Catholics have used some form of birth control (except Rick Santorum, obviously).

CeeJay and others have indicated that even though they are Catholic, they and their priests have said their own decisions are between them and God. Keep government OUT of the woman's right to choose!

Like Ladydoc has stated, are YOU willing to provide all the means of support for a child that cannot be cared for? From some of your previous posts, I think the answer is NO. I might be mistaken on that but keep it to yourself.

According to the tenets of the Catholic Church, any form of birth control is a sin. The Pope even preached that in Africa recently. How archaiac can a person be?

I do not think the government should force a woman to have a child if she does not want it. It is a woman's own personal choice. Let it be.

No, I do not want to hear "abortion is murder". It is not - so do not say it. Roe vs Wade made abortion legal. Case closed.

Seems to me that you are just talkin....but skirting the real issue here.

It makes NO difference how many Catholics abide by the law of the church....the issue, to me is the Federal Government interfering in religious exercise, whether you like it or not. We have made concessions to the Muslim faith for years but in this case, the only thing getting the administrations attention is the fear of political repercussions.

The message is keep the government out of religion.

Note the ONLY chagrin from this administration is the political chaos caused. This health bill, unless repealed 100% is going to be an anchor on this country, especially financially for a long long time.

[Guest]

SkyGuy,

What percentage of Catholic women use birth control of some kind - yet that is forbidden by the Catholic Church? Since the Middle Ages, Catholics have used some form of birth control (except Rick Santorum, obviously).

CeeJay and others have indicated that even though they are Catholic, they and their priests have said their own decisions are between them and God. Keep government OUT of the woman's right to choose!

Like Ladydoc has stated, are YOU willing to provide all the means of support for a child that cannot be cared for? From some of your previous posts, I think the answer is NO. I might be mistaken on that but keep it to yourself.

According to the tenets of the Catholic Church, any form of birth control is a sin. The Pope even preached that in Africa recently. How archaiac can a person be?

I do not think the government should force a woman to have a child if she does not want it. It is a woman's own personal choice. Let it be.

No, I do not want to hear "abortion is murder". It is not - so do not say it. Roe vs Wade made abortion legal. Case closed.

All this talk and all these false assumptions and the unmitigated gall, the hubris to presume to preach to the Holy Father.

This is about forcing the Catholic Church to do something against it's teachings. Talking about Catholic women who stray from this teaching is pointless and absurd.

You the guy who loves to talk about separation of church and state in the past. Here you go, put up or shut up about your view on that.

[Guest]

Like my good friend, Bucco, says, "The message is keep the government out of religion." This is true as is the converse, "Keep religion out of government."

Case closed.

[Guest]

Like my good friend, Bucco, says, "The message is keep the government out of religion." This is true as is the converse, "Keep religion out of government."

Case closed.

.......and keep government the heck out of religion


Case closed.

(gee, does that ever work, Buggy?)

[Guest]

djplong~ Here's a scenario for you...You are a single lady who has been told that she will never be able to conceive. You have known your fiance for 5 years when you find out that you are indeed pregnant. Happily you inform the fiance that the impossible has now become possible. He sternly informs you that he doesn't want children and begins to write the check to "take care" of this...ie, get the abortion. After you refuse, he walks out of your life. You have no parents left in your life to assist you, and it is in an era where unwed pregnancies are not the norm yet. Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!! So....you pick yourself up by the boot straps as you were raised to do, you carry this innocent life to completion. You struggle to make ends meet and give this child the best life has to offer. She grows up to be a beautiful, intelligent woman with 5 children of her own-to whom she is a wonderful mother. You do all of this because it is the right thing to do, because we are civilized humans not barbarians, because greater love has no man than to lay down his life for another...
I am that woman, so don't give us that selfish "life was tough at that moment" garbage. We can accomplish great feats of love, when we CHOOSE to. It ain't always easy, but it is ALWAYS worth it!

God Bless your mom, Katz...and God Bless both of mine.

There is a second scenario.

A young woman, 17 years old, finds herself pregnant back in the day. She is aware of the shame that would bring upon herself and her family.

She, too, realized that this was a loving being growing inside of her and decides to have the baby and put it up for adoption.

It turns out that she has twins...and now has to unselfishly give up two babies..a boy and a girl. I'm sure that was probably twice as hard.

I am that girl baby...I was given to a loving couple who were unable to have children. They also took my brother...thank God they didn't separate us.

Had she had an abortion...well, I wouldn't be here and neither would my brother...

I thank God everyday for both my mothers...

[Guest]

SkyGuy,

CeeJay and others have indicated that even though they are Catholic, they and their priests have said their own decisions are between them and God. Keep government OUT of the woman's right to choose!

You sure like to twist things the way that you want to hear them.

I worked for a Catholic School for 13 years. It was just a given that birth control was not offered through my insurance...I totally understood and was fine with it.

I bought my own birth control pills and never had a problem with it.

The government has absolutely no right to interfere and no right to be "in a woman's uterus".

This was my original post in a different thread..."Here we go again".

I never said "Keep government OUT of the woman's right to choose".

I said "The government has absolutely no right to interfere..." meaning
KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT....PERIOD.

Please do not take my words out of context.

[Guest]

Like my good friend, Bucco, says, "The message is keep the government out of religion." This is true as is the converse, "Keep religion out of government."

Case closed.


You absolutely distort everything to fit your world. I sure wish that I was as intelligent as you think you are !!!

I might add that referring to me as your "good friend" is as much a stretch as having you respond to any post with facts and common sense. I am not, and will not ever be your "good friend"

And once again, referring to another post...you implied the Washington Times hid their ownership..please validate your accusation ! Secondly, please explain the reason for your thread in the first place. You keep running away from that.

[Guest]

I think what we have here is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE. The fact of the matter is when you take away accountability, greed, selfishness and fear, we are all very much alike in the way we think. My goodness are we not all human beings? Now lets everyone admit that they are not perfect and then we can start to agree on a few things first, then a lot of things.

[Guest]

I think what we have here is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE. The fact of the matter is when you take away accountability, greed, selfishness and fear, we are all very much alike in the way we think. My goodness are we not all human beings? Yes, I may very well be more in tune with reality than the majority of posters on this forum, but even I can make mistakes. Now lets everyone admit that they are not perfect and then we can start to agree on a few things first, then a lot of things.

Ya' know...maybe if you had left out this sentence...what you are saying would make sense.

I think you blew it.:boom:

[Guest]

Ya' know...maybe if you had left out this sentence...what you are saying would make sense.

I think you blew it.:boom:

I know, but it is hard not to be sarcastic when talking to sarcastic people. I will edit that line out of my post. Thanks for the suggestion CeeJay

[Guest]

First off there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says to keep religion out of government. There is, it so happens, a passage that says, "The government will not establish a religion." Learn the difference. For those of you that are to lazy to look it up, that means our good Uncle Sam will not be able to tell you how to pray or to whom to pray to, but then on the other hand they. the government, can and does have prayer breaksfasts, a pray before the start of congress, etc. None of the government officials have to attend any of these events if they don't want to, the same as "WE" don't have to attend any religious event that "WE" don't want to.

Therefore, you may all worship any way you want to as long as it don't interfer with my right to worship any way I want. Remember, your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ends at the tip of my nose.

[Guest]

Ya' know...maybe if you had left out this sentence...what you are saying would make sense.

I think you blew it.:boom:

VILLAGER2 appears to have a feeling that he/she is above the rest of us, yet you very seldom read a well thought out, researched response from him/her...only pontifications and name calling.

In my book, that does not elevate you to ABOVE the rest but well, well below

[Guest]

VILLAGER2 appears to have a feeling that he/she is above the rest of us, yet you very seldom read a well thought out, researched response from him/her...only pontifications and name calling.

In my book, that does not elevate you to ABOVE the rest but well, well below

I read it twice, but still have no idea what you mean. I am just a simple man with simple needs. Please do not think I feel anything other than that.

[Guest]

djplong~ Here's a scenario for you...You are a single lady who has been told that she will never be able to conceive. You have known your fiance for 5 years when you find out that you are indeed pregnant. Happily you inform the fiance that the impossible has now become possible. He sternly informs you that he doesn't want children and begins to write the check to "take care" of this...ie, get the abortion. After you refuse, he walks out of your life. You have no parents left in your life to assist you, and it is in an era where unwed pregnancies are not the norm yet. Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!! So....you pick yourself up by the boot straps as you were raised to do, you carry this innocent life to completion. You struggle to make ends meet and give this child the best life has to offer. She grows up to be a beautiful, intelligent woman with 5 children of her own-to whom she is a wonderful mother. You do all of this because it is the right thing to do, because we are civilized humans not barbarians, because greater love has no man than to lay down his life for another...
I am that woman, so don't give us that selfish "life was tough at that moment" garbage. We can accomplish great feats of love, when we CHOOSE to. It ain't always easy, but it is ALWAYS worth it!

1) Katz, you said it was a scenario for me.. I'll get to that.

2) You then said you were that woman. So should I make the assumption that you want to know what I would have done in your position? Or are you simply expressing your experiences since you DID undergo those circumstances?

If you're asking me, I can *honestly* say that I don't quite know what *I* would do. I'd have some long hard thinking to do. The only part I'm deliberately ignoring is where you say about this being at a point in time where unwed pregnancies weren't as accepted. It's hard enough to respond to the here and now without adding time travel to the mix.

You said you went through this. You also said it was always worth it.

For you, I have no doubt that this is true.

Take a look at any abused kid who's mother wishes they'd never been born and you understand there are no absolutes like that.

I could have been aborted. My birth mother got pregnant without knowing it, dumped her fiancee when she discovered he was married to someone else and then enlisted in the Marines. Mind you, this was 1962! Towards the end of basic training, they discovered her pregnancy and she was given a medical discharge. She told me that, from the instant they'd told her, she knew she was going to give me up for adoption.

The only reason I'm telling you all this is to let you know where my history is on this - and the fact that I have very personal experiences in this area.

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. I can't stand abortion. Never liked it and never will. There are times it's a necessary evil. There are also times that it's abused out of 'convenience' - no argument there.

But until we prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortion is going to be in the public debate.

...and as a side note, we have Santorum who's not just against public funding of contraception but against contraception PERIOD!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

[Guest]

First off there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says to keep religion out of government. There is, it so happens, a passage that says, "The government will not establish a religion." Learn the difference. For those of you that are to lazy to look it up, that means our good Uncle Sam will not be able to tell you how to pray or to whom to pray to, but then on the other hand they. the government, can and does have prayer breaksfasts, a pray before the start of congress, etc.

Wrong.

The passage is "Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion".

IT DOES *NOT* SAY "ESTABLISHMENT OF *A* RELIGION"!!!!!!

The word "establishment" is a NOUN in that sentence!

A church or school is an establishment of religion - in the way, as I like to use as an example - that a pub is an establishment of alcohol.

There is a HUGE difference there.

[Guest]

1) Katz, you said it was a scenario for me.. I'll get to that.

2) You then said you were that woman. So should I make the assumption that you want to know what I would have done in your position? Or are you simply expressing your experiences since you DID undergo those circumstances?

If you're asking me, I can *honestly* say that I don't quite know what *I* would do. I'd have some long hard thinking to do. The only part I'm deliberately ignoring is where you say about this being at a point in time where unwed pregnancies weren't as accepted. It's hard enough to respond to the here and now without adding time travel to the mix.

You said you went through this. You also said it was always worth it.

For you, I have no doubt that this is true.

Take a look at any abused kid who's mother wishes they'd never been born and you understand there are no absolutes like that.

I could have been aborted. My birth mother got pregnant without knowing it, dumped her fiancee when she discovered he was married to someone else and then enlisted in the Marines. Mind you, this was 1962! Towards the end of basic training, they discovered her pregnancy and she was given a medical discharge. She told me that, from the instant they'd told her, she knew she was going to give me up for adoption.

The only reason I'm telling you all this is to let you know where my history is on this - and the fact that I have very personal experiences in this area.

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. I can't stand abortion. Never liked it and never will. There are times it's a necessary evil. There are also times that it's abused out of 'convenience' - no argument there.

But until we prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortion is going to be in the public debate.

...and as a side note, we have Santorum who's not just against public funding of contraception but against contraception PERIOD!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

I only posted my experience, as you seem to think that since you had an "experience", you can be the authority to claim that it is OK for someone to make the decision to end another's life based on their circumstances....and as I have said before- life begins at conception and no one has the right to take an innocent life for any reason.

[Guest]

Going back to the initial subject of this thread, Islamic hatred, I recommend getting this week's Newsweek and reading the cover article - The War on Christians. The facts are straightforward. Christians and other religious minorities are being killed by the tens of thousands in EVERY Muslim majority country. Churches are bombed, women raped and mutilated, beheadings - always popular among Muslims are commonplace.

Islam is not and never has been a religion of peace. Muslims talk constantly about the Crusaders, but never mention that the first crusade was caused by Muslims killing 3,000 unarmed Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land. They do not refer to the many Muslim crusades seeking to enslave Europe nor do they talk of the Muslim slave trade running from southern Europe to the Islamic nations. Slavery is another thing still popular in Islamic countries.

Islam is the declared enemy of Israel and the United States. Islam has always spoken of tolerance when it exists as a minority. Tolerance ceases to exist when it achieves a majority.

[Guest]

Going back to the initial subject of this thread, Islamic hatred, I recommend getting this week's Newsweek and reading the cover article - The War on Christians. The facts are straightforward. Christians and other religious minorities are being killed by the tens of thousands in EVERY Muslim majority country. Churches are bombed, women raped and mutilated, beheadings - always popular among Muslims are commonplace.

Islam is not and never has been a religion of peace. Muslims talk constantly about the Crusaders, but never mention that the first crusade was caused by Muslims killing 3,000 unarmed Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land. They do not refer to the many Muslim crusades seeking to enslave Europe nor do they talk of the Muslim slave trade running from southern Europe to the Islamic nations. Slavery is another thing still popular in Islamic countries.

Islam is the declared enemy of Israel and the United States. Islam has always spoken of tolerance when it exists as a minority. Tolerance ceases to exist when it achieves a majority.

:bigbow:

[Guest]

Wrong.

The passage is "Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion".

IT DOES *NOT* SAY "ESTABLISHMENT OF *A* RELIGION"!!!!!!

The word "establishment" is a NOUN in that sentence!

A church or school is an establishment of religion - in the way, as I like to use as an example - that a pub is an establishment of alcohol.

There is a HUGE difference there.

I don't get your analogy at all. A school is an establishment of religion? What are you talking about? I don't see your point at all; I'm serious.

The state shall make no law respecting (meaning the next phrase) an establishment of religion. A direct reference and rejection of what they left, meaning a government religion like the Church of England.

Maybe the complete phrase might clear this up.

(The following is from Wikipedia, if that is acceptable. If not I will look further)

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

[Guest]

Richie...

How about when someone says a phrase like "I shall no longer patronize this establishment". Establishment is a NOUN, not a verb. That's what it is in the Constitution - but people keep thinking "establishment of religion" is worded "establishment of A religion". It's an easy mistake to make because the word 'establishment' isn't really used that way very much these days.

One of the local churches here has several "establishments" - the church itself, a hospital, a soup kitchen and I think they still have a school.

[Guest]

I hereby declare djplong the correct poster in reference to this debate. Sorry Richie, but you missed only by a little bit on this one. Good luck on future posts.

[Guest]

Richie...

How about when someone says a phrase like "I shall no longer patronize this establishment". Establishment is a NOUN, not a verb. That's what it is in the Constitution - but people keep thinking "establishment of religion" is worded "establishment of A religion". It's an easy mistake to make because the word 'establishment' isn't really used that way very much these days.

One of the local churches here has several "establishments" - the church itself, a hospital, a soup kitchen and I think they still have a school.

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[Guest]

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

My point exactly. Trust me on this one.

[Guest]

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

This is my point.

People have interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Founders intended for there to be no state religion. And that part is true, but it's not the WHOLE truth.

People have read that clause with the "additional 'a'" in it for a long time - but it simply does not exist.

Every time something like "prayer in school" comes up, those who want it claim that the only thing the Founders prohibited was an arrangement like the Anglican Church in England where *that* was the "official" religion.

The fact of the matter is that the Founders believed that religion was a private matter and not something that government should be involved in - and quite frankly, based on the evidence from thousands of years before and hundreds of years after them, they were correct.

[Guest]

I hereby declare djplong the correct poster in reference to this debate. Sorry Richie, but you missed only by a little bit on this one. Good luck on future posts.

I don't get it. This quote above is directed at me, and when I post that this poster's opinion of DJ's and my discussion is hardly worth the time it took him to write it and that I don't accept his unsubstantiated critique, the Moderator deemed it aimed at him and deletes it. (at little paraphrasing as I don't remember my exact quote)

Was not the above quote aimed at me? Where's the fairness?

[Guest]

My point exactly. Trust me on this one.

Never in a million years.

[Guest]

This is my point.

People have interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Founders intended for there to be no state religion. And that part is true, but it's not the WHOLE truth.

People have read that clause with the "additional 'a'" in it for a long time - but it simply does not exist.

Every time something like "prayer in school" comes up, those who want it claim that the only thing the Founders prohibited was an arrangement like the Anglican Church in England where *that* was the "official" religion.

The fact of the matter is that the Founders believed that religion was a private matter and not something that government should be involved in - and quite frankly, based on the evidence from thousands of years before and hundreds of years after them, they were correct.

Who's arguing that point with you? I certainly wasn't. The State cannot establish a religion or make any law regarding establishment of religion. That's all well and good, and I'm guessing we agree on those points.

The State also cannot enforce it's will in any form upon a religion. Are you arguing they can, or that they cannot. I'm not getting your point on this.

I don't know what fish you're trying to fry here.

[Guest]

The State also cannot enforce it's will in any form upon a religion. Are you arguing they can, or that they cannot. I'm not getting your point on this.


Well, we're narrowing it down, anyway :)

Ok.

The state cannot enforce it's will on *a religion* - again, I agree with you here.

*However* - if a religion is participating in public commerce, well, there are rules that have to be obeyed. A soup kitchen, for example, could not bar blacks or jews from entering.

So, now keep in mind that there already IS an exemption in the Obamacare law for 335,000 (if my numbers were quoted correctly) churches, missions and other places of worship - they don't have to provide insurance plans with contraceptive coverage. That part keeps the government from saying that a priest has to be covered for contraception.

But if I'm working in a hospital (I used to), I shouldn't have to give up my "civil rights" in order to work in such a public enterprise. In fact, I worked at a hospital run by a religiously-affiliated organization (Boston's Beth Israel Hospital). I didn't have to keep kashrut, observe the sabbath or get a circumcision.

So, if Obamacare is the law of the land (please remember, I have other issues with the law), it should apply equally to everyone. If the hospital I worked at was St. Joseph's in Nashua, I should be covered by the law and *not* have the Catholic Church's doctrine enforced upon me. (It would be different if I, for some unknown reason, were actually working FOR the Church - like if they hypothetically wanted me to write websites for them)

On the flip side of this, it is the stated doctrine of the Catholic Church to oppose "pulling the plug". If I'd developed some horrible disease, my wife knows what my wishes are and when to consider ceasing life-support measures. It's easy to see a situation where, if I worked for a Catholic hospital or school, my insurance could be BARRED from allowing my wife to let me die with dignity.

*That*, as you put it, is the fish I'm trying to fry. "Equal Protection Under The Law". The Catholic Church cannot bar minorities from their establishment - there are a whole slew of laws they have to abide by when they open public establishments. This is no different.

[Guest]

"Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!!'

It must be so wonderful to assume that you speak for ALL women. You don't, not by a long shot. So once again..if you don't believe in abortions, don't have one. But you have no right to force your beliefs on others. I have always said it is the woman's choice. Not yours, not mine.

[Guest]

Wrong.

The passage is "Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion".IT DOES *NOT* SAY "ESTABLISHMENT OF *A* RELIGION"!!!!!!

The word "establishment" is a NOUN in that sentence!

A church or school is an establishment of religion - in the way, as I like to use as an example - that a pub is an establishment of alcohol.

There is a HUGE difference there.

Ok...so am I reading you post and statement wrong?

A Church or religious school is "an establishment" of religion. But it starts out by saying "Congress shall pass NO Law respecting...

So, you said "establishment" is a noun...which would mean a Church or a hospital or a school..correct?

So, if they can "pass NO law respecting an establishment of religion" how can Mr. Obama make a law (mandate) that they provide birth control?

I realize that he has since "changed his mind", but I guess I'm confused by your post as well, djplong.

I shouldn't have to give up my "civil rights" in order to work in such a public enterprise.

If you "choose" to work for a Catholic (or whatever) enterprise...it's always been a given that they will not cover contraceptives or abortions. That's been the standard for as long as I can remember. What gives Mr. Obama the right to change it?

[Guest]

"Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!!'

It must be so wonderful to assume that you speak for ALL women. You don't, not by a long shot. So once again..if you don't believe in abortions, don't have one. But you have no right to force your beliefs on others. I have always said it is the woman's choice. Not yours, not mine.

Ummm...who are you talking to?

[Guest]

Ok...so am I reading you post and statement wrong?

A Church or religious school is "an establishment" of religion. But it starts out by saying "Congress shall pass NO Law respecting...

So, you said "establishment" is a noun...which would mean a Church or a hospital or a school..correct?

So, if they can "pass NO law respecting an establishment of religion" how can Mr. Obama make a law (mandate) that they provide birth control?

I realize that he has since "changed his mind", but I guess I'm confused by your post as well, djplong.

If you "choose" to work for a Catholic (or whatever) enterprise...it's always been a given that they will not cover contraceptives or abortions. That's been the standard for as long as I can remember. What gives Mr. Obama the right to change it?

Here's how it works in this particular case.

Understand that there already is an exception for *churches* - all churches. All churches are treated equally.

Mass. General Hospital in Boston, for example, will have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Catholic Medical Center in Manchester NH will now also have to do so (if they don't already). If they are allowed to have an exception, then the law IS "respecting an establishment of religion" in that it's a law on businesses that is allowing an exception if that business is affiliated with a church. That violates Equal Protection Under The Law.

Now, here's the real kicker.

NH Catholic Charities spokesperson Nick Boudreau was quoted in an article on January 29th:

Officials decry rule making health plans cover contraception | New Hampshire NEWS06 (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120129/NEWS06/701299973)


N.H. Catholic Charities would be forced to provide coverage for sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception or choose to not provide health care coverage to employees, or tragically stop serving non-Catholics who make up a high percentage of the needy we serve.


A few days later, the paper found the following:


New Hampshire has a state insurance mandate for contraceptives similar to the federal one that has generated so much controversy over the past few weeks.

And that's why some Catholic institutions here, including New Hampshire Catholic Charities and Saint Anselm College, currently provide such coverage for their employees.

RSA 415:18-i mandates that any company that provides group health insurance must cover all prescription contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The mandate has been in effect here since Jan. 1, 2000, after the Legislature passed it with bipartisan support the previous year.

Unlike the federal mandate, there is no so-called “conscience exemption” under the New Hampshire law to allow churches not to provide coverage that goes against their religious beliefs


So it just gets more confusing as to who's paying - like one of the articles says, it's more like a shell game as far as where the money comes from and goes to...

I just think that it's interesting that the week after a good jobs report comes out (lower unemployment, fewer UI claims, etc), suddenly the campaign screaming shifted to THIS issue.

[Guest]

Ummm...who are you talking to?

opps....sorry. this is in response to one of katz's posts

[Guest]

Thanks for the explanation, djplong. I am going to have to read it in the morning when my head is clear...that is just too much to take in.

Is New Hampshire the only state that has this insurance madate to date?

[Guest]

Well, we're narrowing it down, anyway :)

Ok.

The state cannot enforce it's will on *a religion* - again, I agree with you here.

*However* - if a religion is participating in public commerce, well, there are rules that have to be obeyed. A soup kitchen, for example, could not bar blacks or jews from entering.

So, now keep in mind that there already IS an exemption in the Obamacare law for 335,000 (if my numbers were quoted correctly) churches, missions and other places of worship - they don't have to provide insurance plans with contraceptive coverage. That part keeps the government from saying that a priest has to be covered for contraception.

But if I'm working in a hospital (I used to), I shouldn't have to give up my "civil rights" in order to work in such a public enterprise. In fact, I worked at a hospital run by a religiously-affiliated organization (Boston's Beth Israel Hospital). I didn't have to keep kashrut, observe the sabbath or get a circumcision.

So, if Obamacare is the law of the land (please remember, I have other issues with the law), it should apply equally to everyone. If the hospital I worked at was St. Joseph's in Nashua, I should be covered by the law and *not* have the Catholic Church's doctrine enforced upon me. (It would be different if I, for some unknown reason, were actually working FOR the Church - like if they hypothetically wanted me to write websites for them)

On the flip side of this, it is the stated doctrine of the Catholic Church to oppose "pulling the plug". If I'd developed some horrible disease, my wife knows what my wishes are and when to consider ceasing life-support measures. It's easy to see a situation where, if I worked for a Catholic hospital or school, my insurance could be BARRED from allowing my wife to let me die with dignity.

*That*, as you put it, is the fish I'm trying to fry. "Equal Protection Under The Law". The Catholic Church cannot bar minorities from their establishment - there are a whole slew of laws they have to abide by when they open public establishments. This is no different.

Your premise is flawed. You're misinformed on the church's teachings on "extraordinary measures". The church does not believe people must live in pain and have no objection to a person dying "naturally".

Maybe you just picked that analogy point and you have another which might be better, but your point above is wrong.

The Catholic Church, the Muslim faith, or any other faith, cannot, BY LAW, be forced to do something which in an anathema to their faith. Are you really just trying to dispute that?

WTCT: Catholic perspective on medical treatment, palliative care, euthanasia (http://www.osv.com/OSV4MeNav/WhattheChurchTeaches/WTCTEndofLifeIssues/ExtraordinaryMeansofCare/tabid/491/Default.aspx)

[Guest]

Here's how it works in this particular case.

Understand that there already is an exception for *churches* - all churches. All churches are treated equally.

Mass. General Hospital in Boston, for example, will have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Catholic Medical Center in Manchester NH will now also have to do so (if they don't already). If they are allowed to have an exception, then the law IS "respecting an establishment of religion" in that it's a law on businesses that is allowing an exception if that business is affiliated with a church. That violates Equal Protection Under The Law.

Now, here's the real kicker.

NH Catholic Charities spokesperson Nick Boudreau was quoted in an article on January 29th:

Officials decry rule making health plans cover contraception | New Hampshire NEWS06 (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120129/NEWS06/701299973)



A few days later, the paper found the following:



So it just gets more confusing as to who's paying - like one of the articles says, it's more like a shell game as far as where the money comes from and goes to...

I just think that it's interesting that the week after a good jobs report comes out (lower unemployment, fewer UI claims, etc), suddenly the campaign screaming shifted to THIS issue.

The law reads that the institution does not have to provide the "medication" if it just eliminates any prescription coverage from it's plan. That's the Church's solution right there. No prescription plan coverage; no problem.

[Guest]

"Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!!'

It must be so wonderful to assume that you speak for ALL women. You don't, not by a long shot. So once again..if you don't believe in abortions, don't have one. But you have no right to force your beliefs on others. I have always said it is the woman's choice. Not yours, not mine.

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot that it is YOU who can speak for ALL women AND ALL the unborn babies, that are better off dead than living in poverty or abusive homes, etc.

[Guest]

Your premise is flawed. You're misinformed on the church's teachings on "extraordinary measures". The church does not believe people must live in pain and have no objection to a person dying "naturally".

Maybe you just picked that analogy point and you have another which might be better, but your point above is wrong.

The Catholic Church, the Muslim faith, or any other faith, cannot, BY LAW, be forced to do something which in an anathema to their faith. Are you really just trying to dispute that?

WTCT: Catholic perspective on medical treatment, palliative care, euthanasia (http://www.osv.com/OSV4MeNav/WhattheChurchTeaches/WTCTEndofLifeIssues/ExtraordinaryMeansofCare/tabid/491/Default.aspx)

Father Benson, who was quoted in the link you provided, seems to be SOMEWHAT at odds with the official Vatican position that I found here:

Respect for the dignity of the dying (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001209_eutanasia_en.html)

I started having problems with Section 4. Although they DO speak of allowing for pain medication to ease the suffering of terminal patients, there are also lines such as the following:


A request for death on the part of those in grave suffering - as surveys of patients and testimonies of clinicians close to situations of the dying show - is almost always the last expression of the patient's hearfelt request for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable treatment, two elements which are sometimes lacking in today's hospitals.


The arrogance is sickening. A DNR or a living will is a cry for attention??? Now, a 'regular' suicide attempt is very often exactly what they say - but the cases of people suffering from disease or other terminal/chronic malady? Sorry. They're wrong here. I've related the case of my grandmother before - and I think I've also spoken about my adoptive mother's suicide. I was the only one she told when she made her plans specifically because she did NOT want an army of rescuers telling her what was best for her (since an army of doctors already told her she wouldn't get better).

Yes, they say it's ok to "die naturally", but their definition of "naturally" and mine have some differences.

You're certainly right in that a CHURCH cannot be forced to do something that is anathema to their faith. To use another contemporary example, a church cannot be forced to perform a gay marriage. By the same token, they shouldn't be forcing THEIR beliefs on others when engaged in more public activities. Here's something I found when checking on Vatican bigotry:


When France proposed a resolution seeking all nations to decriminalise homosexuality, the Vatican immediately said it would oppose the resolution. This is despite the fact that up to 70 nations still have legal punishments for gay people including, in some instances, the death penalty. In a number of Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual acts are still a capital offence.


So, in your mind, should a Catholic hospital be allowed to ban gays from employment?

[Guest]

Father Benson, who was quoted in the link you provided, seems to be SOMEWHAT at odds with the official Vatican position that I found here:

Respect for the dignity of the dying (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001209_eutanasia_en.html)

I started having problems with Section 4. Although they DO speak of allowing for pain medication to ease the suffering of terminal patients, there are also lines such as the following:



The arrogance is sickening. A DNR or a living will is a cry for attention??? Now, a 'regular' suicide attempt is very often exactly what they say - but the cases of people suffering from disease or other terminal/chronic malady? Sorry. They're wrong here. I've related the case of my grandmother before - and I think I've also spoken about my adoptive mother's suicide. I was the only one she told when she made her plans specifically because she did NOT want an army of rescuers telling her what was best for her (since an army of doctors already told her she wouldn't get better).

Yes, they say it's ok to "die naturally", but their definition of "naturally" and mine have some differences.

You're certainly right in that a CHURCH cannot be forced to do something that is anathema to their faith. To use another contemporary example, a church cannot be forced to perform a gay marriage. By the same token, they shouldn't be forcing THEIR beliefs on others when engaged in more public activities. Here's something I found when checking on Vatican bigotry:



So, in your mind, should a Catholic hospital be allowed to ban gays from employment?


"A request for death on the part of those in grave suffering - as surveys of patients and testimonies of clinicians close to situations of the dying show - is almost always the last expression of the patient's hearfelt request for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable treatment, two elements which are sometimes lacking in today's hospitals."
Whose arrogance is sickening?!?! How does one conclude from this quote that a DNR is a "cry for attention"?!? "Heartfelt request for greater attention and human closeness" is what it says. Have you no intelligence on matters of the heart? of love? of need for the closeness of loved ones as a soul slips away into an unknown place called death? People need people, it is as plain and simple as that. Yet you twist and turn the statement of facts into some perverse interpretation? Have you sat by the side of a loved one as they suffered and died? as they questioned their faith or lack of? once again, you miss the point.
WOW, you sir never cease to amaze me...:ohdear:

[Guest]

Father Benson, who was quoted in the link you provided, seems to be SOMEWHAT at odds with the official Vatican position that I found here:

Respect for the dignity of the dying (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001209_eutanasia_en.html)

I started having problems with Section 4. Although they DO speak of allowing for pain medication to ease the suffering of terminal patients, there are also lines such as the following:



The arrogance is sickening. A DNR or a living will is a cry for attention??? Now, a 'regular' suicide attempt is very often exactly what they say - but the cases of people suffering from disease or other terminal/chronic malady? Sorry. They're wrong here. I've related the case of my grandmother before - and I think I've also spoken about my adoptive mother's suicide. I was the only one she told when she made her plans specifically because she did NOT want an army of rescuers telling her what was best for her (since an army of doctors already told her she wouldn't get better).

Yes, they say it's ok to "die naturally", but their definition of "naturally" and mine have some differences.

You're certainly right in that a CHURCH cannot be forced to do something that is anathema to their faith. To use another contemporary example, a church cannot be forced to perform a gay marriage. By the same token, they shouldn't be forcing THEIR beliefs on others when engaged in more public activities. Here's something I found when checking on Vatican bigotry:



So, in your mind, should a Catholic hospital be allowed to ban gays from employment?

Of course the Catholic Church can't be compelled to perform a gay marriage. That's just ludicrous.

You just pick out the Catholic Church when your discussing employing gays. How about Muslims who would sentence them to death in any other country that ours.

I don't know the Catholic Church's policy of discovering one of their employee's are gay. Do you? Link an explanation of this occurrence if one is available. I think that the Church would try to council this person.

[Guest]

Richie:

How did I conclude that? Well the quote:


as surveys of patients and testimonies of clinicians close to situations of the dying show - is almost always the last expression of the patient's hearfelt request for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable treatment


...specifically says a request for greater attention and closesness as well as treatment. A DNR is specifically to REFUSE treatment - to say "enough is enough"!

I pick out the Catholic Church because they're the ones arguing against the contraception coverage clause. We all know that Muslims do far worse in other countries (as my other quote referenced).

But just because someone else is worse doesn't mean ignoring what's still wrong. My adoptive mother stole money from me and, when I complained, her "defense" was that my friend's mother was worse. It's debating fallacy called 'deflection', if memory serves.

My "what ifs" were cut short as this one would be.. But I'll phrase them differently.

Just how many civil rights or laws should be "exempted" when a religious-affiliated group is running a hospital or non-religious school?

Should they be hypothetically allowed to ban gays? ...minorities? ...women? (There's a classic case - women cannot become priests, and that's ok with the Government under "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof", but you can't discriminate against them beaing teachers or nurses in hospitals)

The Catholic Church believes those to have had abortions to have committed murder. Should they be allowed to hypothetically refuse treatment to someone who's had an abortion - or the husband of a woman who has (as perhaps he was an accomplice).

My point in all of this is "where do you draw the line?" - and that's usually the most difficult question.

[Guest]

The Muslims make their own laws. Lets not go down that road in America. Separation of church and state 100%

[Guest]

Richie:

How did I conclude that? Well the quote:



...specifically says a request for greater attention and closesness as well as treatment. A DNR is specifically to REFUSE treatment - to say "enough is enough"!

I pick out the Catholic Church because they're the ones arguing against the contraception coverage clause. We all know that Muslims do far worse in other countries (as my other quote referenced).

But just because someone else is worse doesn't mean ignoring what's still wrong. My adoptive mother stole money from me and, when I complained, her "defense" was that my friend's mother was worse. It's debating fallacy called 'deflection', if memory serves.

My "what ifs" were cut short as this one would be.. But I'll phrase them differently.

Just how many civil rights or laws should be "exempted" when a religious-affiliated group is running a hospital or non-religious school?

Should they be hypothetically allowed to ban gays? ...minorities? ...women? (There's a classic case - women cannot become priests, and that's ok with the Government under "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof", but you can't discriminate against them beaing teachers or nurses in hospitals)

The Catholic Church believes those to have had abortions to have committed murder. Should they be allowed to hypothetically refuse treatment to someone who's had an abortion - or the husband of a woman who has (as perhaps he was an accomplice).

My point in all of this is "where do you draw the line?" - and that's usually the most difficult question.

I'm thinking you've got too many "what if's" and that you're losing whatever point it is you're trying to make.

I really don't think you're making your case here and all of it is flawed.

No hospital is going to turn away a patient who is suffering or in a life threatening situation. I don't know where you get that idea.

The upshot of all this is that it does appear to me that you're flailing about in all of your musings in an attempt to convince people that the church's teachings and beliefs have to be subordinate to laws that are indeed adverse to those beliefs.

You cannot make that case.

[Guest]

Perhaps I can sum it up this way.

How the Church acts in *private* (the free exercise of their religion) is one thing.

How they act in *public* (operating schools, hospitals, etc), is subject to *public* laws.

There are some grey areas in there, I'll be the first one to admit that (hence the reason I was doing the "what ifs" to see where to draw the line)

To take a simple example..

A Church doesn't have to marry homosexuals if it's against their teaching.

A Church-sponsored hospital CANNOT deny service to a homosexual (not saying they WOULD, I'm just saying they CAN'T)

[Guest]

It must be hard being Catholic. Knowing what the church hierarchy wants in terms of human behavior and also knowing that's it's near impossible to meet the expectations; not that the vast majority even want to try. It's an archaic, mostly irrelevent religion.
It's much easier being agnostic. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

Perhaps I can sum it up this way.

How the Church acts in *private* (the free exercise of their religion) is one thing.

How they act in *public* (operating schools, hospitals, etc), is subject to *public* laws.

There are some grey areas in there, I'll be the first one to admit that (hence the reason I was doing the "what ifs" to see where to draw the line)

To take a simple example..

A Church doesn't have to marry homosexuals if it's against their teaching.

A Church-sponsored hospital CANNOT deny service to a homosexual (not saying they WOULD, I'm just saying they CAN'T)

The Church does not operate public schools. So what you say does not apply. You have to choose to go to parochial school. You certainly don't have to.

The same goes with hospitals. No emergency patient is going to be turned away from a Catholic hospital, and they will fight for that person's life, there's no doubt about it. Elective procedures? That's where you don't have to go to that hospital. There are others to perform procedures that a Catholic Hospital might not administer.

So this was all an exercise with no real cause for alarm on your part, it seems. I'm still not sure what the point of all of this was.

[Guest]

The Church does not operate public schools. So what you say does not apply. You have to choose to go to parochial school. You certainly don't have to.

The same goes with hospitals. No emergency patient is going to be turned away from a Catholic hospital, and they will fight for that person's life, there's no doubt about it. Elective procedures? That's where you don't have to go to that hospital. There are others to perform procedures that a Catholic Hospital might not administer.

So this was all an exercise with no real cause for alarm on your part, it seems. I'm still not sure what the point of all of this was.

Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.

[Guest]

Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.

You are a foolish boy who doesn't know what he's talking about, so why don't you just shut the heck up. It's embarrassing.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=The Villager II;453244]Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.[/QUOT.E]


You have no clue as to what your are talking about...NONE.

DJPLONG, an intelligent guy, goes out of his way almost daily to find some fault with the Catholic church, and even he will admit he has a difficult time being neutral discussing the Church, whether he is right or wrong, he has a slant.

What began the discussion is pretty straight forward....the President and administration erred very seriously with the health care bill (albeit on purpose) and he is simply trying to fix it politically. READ the health care bill...it will scare the @#$%% out of you if you fear government involvement.

RICHIELION does not need me to speak up, but will tell you, he is not in any danger here at all.

[Guest]

Much appreciated Bucco.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=The Villager II;453244]Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.[/QUOT.E]


You have no clue as to what your are talking about...NONE.

DJPLONG, an intelligent guy, goes out of his way almost daily to find some fault with the Catholic church, and even he will admit he has a difficult time being neutral discussing the Church, whether he is right or wrong, he has a slant.

What began the discussion is pretty straight forward....the President and administration erred very seriously with the health care bill (albeit on purpose) and he is simply trying to fix it politically. READ the health care bill...it will scare the @#$%% out of you if you fear government involvement.

RICHIELION does not need me to speak up, but will tell you, he is not in any danger here at all.

Trust me bucco, you don't have to go out of your way to find fault with the Catholic church. The catholic church is a pit of lies , deception, perversion.

[Guest]

All religions are cults. One man or women trying to control many weak men/woman by telling lies that God said to him/her to do this or that. Life your life according the the Bible and you will not need Jim or Pat or Orville to tell you what God said needs to be done by sending them money. Talk about a scam, religion is the biggest one going.

[Guest]

Trust me bucco, you don't have to go out of your way to find fault with the Catholic church. The catholic church is a pit of lies , deception, perversion.

One of the most hate filled posts yet. You must be proud.

[Guest]

Richie, sweaty, please stop. You are out of your league trying so debate with Long.


This is the funninest thing I have heard in a long, long time! :MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

Trust me bucco, you don't have to go out of your way to find fault with the Catholic church. The catholic church is a pit of lies , deception, perversion.

TVII~I thought you claim to be a Christian?...tsk,tsk,tsk:ohdear:

[Guest]

TVII~I thought you claim to be a Christian?...tsk,tsk,tsk:ohdear:

I am a Christian, but I would never be associated with the Catholic version of it. Catholic people are fine, but the hierarchy of the Catholic faith is a little strange don't you think?

[Guest]

One of the most hate filled posts yet. You must be proud.

I cant believe you would say that. I have no hate whatsoever on this subject.

[Guest]

I am a Christian, but I would never be associated with the Catholic version of it. Catholic people are fine, but the hierarchy of the Catholic faith is a little strange don't you think?

I am not a Catholic, just a plain old, Lover of Jesus, Christian. However, I choose to concentrate on the similarities of my faith with the Catholic church. I can't throw the baby out with the bath water. We (all Christians) are HIS Body and He will not perfect us until He returns. As my Catholic son has told me when he was 14 and decided to join the Catholic church, "Mom, when you find the perfect church, let me know and I will join that one instead".

[Guest]

I cant believe you would say that. I have no hate whatsoever on this subject.

A little introspection is in order if you don't see what you said about Catholicism is hateful.

You think there are no Catholics on this forum?

[Guest]

A little introspection is in order if you don't see what you said about Catholicism is hateful.

You think there are no Catholics on this forum?

I am sure there are and that is why I said earlier that I have no problem with the church members, only with the church leaders. Based on the history of the church, IN MY OPINION, this organization has committed more violence and more perversion over the last several hundred years than any other. I will not overlook crime just for the Sunday morning good deed. I suggest you look away from the light for a moment and see the destruction left in the Shadow of the Catholic Church. As a member, you should condemn the bad things done by the church and that in itself will allow the many many many great things done by the Catholic church to shine. i.e. Yes, I believe they do more good than bad.

[Guest]

I don't go out of my way to 'find fault' with the Catholic Church.

It happens that the subject comes up - and in this case, it was specifically the Catholic Bishop's Conference that started arguing the subject we're discussing so *naturally* the Catholic Church would factor into the discussion here.

I certainly admit that I have a hard time being neutral when it concerns the Church - though I try. It took me a while to compartmentalize the priests and others in the Church that I'd known all my life with the criminals in the heirarchy. I'm fortunate in that none of the activities I participated in while growing up (altar boy, CYO, etc) put me on the receiving end of any abuse by any priest.