Politics from the pulpit - shove it

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Few weeks back in church, we had a couple of parishioners give a "guest sermon." Turned out that the folks were activists for the local migrant center and used their time to argue that anything short of full amnesty for illegal aliens was "unChristian," that "human beings cannot be illegal," and that the whole notion that our nation had any right to keep people out at the border was fundamentally unAmerican, unChristian, and immoral. They urged us to join them in a letter writing campaign and march to get our legislators to grant all "alleged illegals" amnesty and open our borders to all comers. They argued that it was our Christian duty to do all we could to force our government to let all the folks in and make 'em American citizens.

What a fucking crock of shit.

First off, I don't go to church to have political crap rammed down my gullet. The setting for Mass is such that the individual has a captive audience and misusing that position for blatantly political means (regardless of the position) is frigging reprehensible. Secondly, staking out an obvious leftist position as the ONLY "American" and "Christian" way to deal with things is horseshit. How in the hell is anyone who disagrees supposed to find a forum to rebut the claims? Ask for equal "pulpit time?" Yeah...that'll happen.

I e-mailed our rector with my gripes, and he politely disagreed with my arguments (and he did agree that "equal time" wasn't gonna happen). He was particularly taken aback at my statement that people outside the country do NOT have an inalienable right to settle here and that one of the whole POINT of being a sovereign nation is determining who is and is not "fit" to join our nation. As a citizens of a sovereign nation, we basically have a "club" and get to decide who will and will not be admitted. The only "inalienable" freedom I'd argue that people outside the US have is being able to voluntarily quit their "membership" in another country. That doesn't mean they get a "right" to join us.

My family came here as immigrants and followed the frigging rules. The lawbreakers currently in my country are trying to "cut in line" and should be tossed the fuck out, with the companies/individuals who knowingly hired them being prosecuted. Whether or not it's what Jesus would do is irrelevant. He's not an American citizen, gets no vote (no, not even a proxy one, Christers...), and sure as hell isn't a viable reference in determining domestic or foreign policy for the U.S.

Look, Christers of all political and denominational stripes: keep your fucking religion out of my government. I don't care if you're a right wing Jesus freak opposed to homosexuals, abortion, booze before noon on Sundays, and back Israel because you stupidly believe that Jesus can't come back without it or if you're some lefty who buys into "liberation theology" bullshit, wants to open our borders to all comers, and wants to disarm the US...you ALL SUCK.

Your fucking religion should stay the fuck out of my government. Always.

Happy frigging Easter.

[Mister Bushice]

I remember when I was a kid a local parish priest made a big stink when he stood up against an abortion center being proposed to be built in Town. He was on the TV news, his sermons began to be covered by journalists, he was flavoring them with anti abortion rhetoric, he was BMOC - for a while.

The diocese responded to all of this attention by "relocating" him to another, very poor parish in the back bay of boston. Seems the church elders weren't real thrilled at this local priest getting all of this recognition and attention, and the rumor was that he was moved becuase it was not only taking away the focus of what he was supposed to be doing, but he had made too many waves in the political arena. This was less than a decade after Roe V wade, so emotions were high.

This issue (immigration) to me is just as much of a hot button topic, with two very disparate POVs. Its too bad your pastor is letting HIS opinions cloud the issue.

Too bad you have no avenue for expressing your opinion on this topic to the parish, but then again, it isn't the place.

and if you think immigration is bad back there. Holy shit, its a fucking travesty out here.

[Dr_Phibes]

Just guessing here, but surely the Christian message transcends the concept of the nation state.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Just guessing here, but surely the Christian message transcends the concept of the nation state.

Depends what you mean by "transcend."

In no way, shape, or form should Christians be using the government at any level (municipal, state, federal) as an arm of their faith. The United States is not a theocracy and, as I said before, the concept of WWJD should have absolutely no bearing on domestic or foreign policy.

If people want to live their lives according to how they view Christ's commands, fine and dandy. If, OTOH, people want to force compliance to the edicts of Christianity through civil legislation, then they are no different than the Muslim freaks trying to enforce Sharia as law.

[Dr_Phibes]

Well, Sharia Law is generally practised privately to resolve domestic disputes - I'm not aware of any national legislation attempted in the west.

But there must be some breaking point - you don't like Liberation Theology, but at some point surely you can see a line being drawn somewhere, for example - if a government takes pro-active measures against what you percieve to be a violation of base values.

[poptart]

Someone speaking politics from the pulpit is showing profound disbelief.
It's just simply not the place for talking about anything other than the Gospel.
The church which allows such talk should not be attended.

In no way, shape, or form should Christians be using the government at any level (municipal, state, federal) as an arm of their faith.

An elected official of any faith is welcome make decisions influenced by his/her faith.
To deny that is silly and discriminatory.
People make decisions based on a LOT of their own sensibilities, faith in something being one.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Someone speaking politics from the pulpit is showing profound disbelief.
It's just simply not the place for talking about anything other than the Gospel.
The church which allows such talk should not be attended.

I was getting danged close, but I found out that I was far from the only parishioner offended by the political blast...and so the vestry has nixed any and all future parishioner-led propaganda efforts from the pulkpit.

An elected official of any faith is welcome make decisions influenced by his/her faith.
To deny that is silly and discriminatory.
People make decisions based on a LOT of their own sensibilities, faith in something being one.

To make one's own personal life choices based on your faith is OK. To then misuse your position as a government official by forcing your constitiuents into adhering to YOUR beliefs through legislation is abominable and unAmerican. No elected or appointed official has the right to impose their faith-based beliefs or traditions on citizens.

Basically, passing laws to prevent citizen A from violating the rights of citizen B (through theft, murder, assault, battery, libel, slander, etc.) is OK and doesn't require any reference to the Bible. Dipping into the OT, NT, Koran, etc. to legislate against consensual behavior between adults (e.g. sexual activity, alcohol use, etc.) is just wrong, as is using any of the aforementioned documents as a basis for domestic or foreign policy (e.g. holy rollers supporting Israel because of their beliefs on the Second Coming).

[poptart]

Mike, I do know your point, and I understand where you're coming from.
There are times when things can get carried away.

I'll say this, however.

If a public official is voted into office then that official is representing the people of an area.
Why are you saying that Bible-thumpers can't have their agenda pushed through .... ?
The official who is pushing through 'religious' legislation is simply representing the people.

The country belongs to the PEOPLE, right .... ?


An agnostic public official may vote in support of some abortion legislation, partly due to the fact that he just doesn't consider a fetus to be living.
A Christian may vote against the same legislation because his faith persuades him to view the fetus as a living being.

So you're saying it is ok for the agnostic to use his 'non-faith' sensibility in evaluating an issue, but it's NOT ok for a Christian to use his 'faith' sensibility ..... ?

You are blatantly discriminating.

[poptart]

What are you babbling about .... ?

I agree with all of that.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

If a legislator votes against abortion because they believe that the process is depriving citizen A (the fetus) of his/her rights, then fine. If a legislator votes to ban abortion solely on the basis of it being against his/her religious beliefs (or that of his/her constituents), then that is wrong. Imposing religious values on citizens, even if the majority hold those values, is trampling the rights of the minority and is a gross violation of our nation's religious neutrality.

There is absolutely NO sound civil basis for legislators passing laws to regulate sexual behaviors (homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) between consenting adults. Neither should there be prohibitions against an adult consuming intoxicating substances in the privacy of their own home. All prohibitions in those area come from religious motivations and should not be considered valid, regardless of how many prudes are in the district. At NO point does the "tyranny of the majority" that Madison and Jefferson rightly feared get to impose their personal religious prejudices on the private behaviors of a minority. EVER.

It is perfectly acceptable and understandable for government employees to have their upbringing and beliefs be the core basis of who they are. However, they must make and enforce/uphold laws that have sound basis in Constitutionally-limited governmental actions, not Scripture. It doesn't matter how often the God of Abraham and Isaac railed against a behavior...if that behavior does not infringe upon the rights of a neighbor, than God takes a back seat to libertarian "your rights extend only so far as they don't infringe upon mine" concerns and that behavior must be allowed.

As far as foreign policy, the sole determinant on what the U.S. should do is what serves the best interests (security and commerce) of the American republic and its citizens. Those holy rollers who buy into "Left Behind"-esque fairy tales and demand that we support Israel due to them are out of their fucking heads. The President, Congress, and the Courts serve their citizens, not a particular denomination or its deities. Invoking religious reasons for public policy is horseshit.

[PSUFAN]

I don't go to church to have political crap rammed down my gullet.

While there is an argument about keeping Church separated from State, the opposite direction is another matter.

[Dinsdale]

Absolute $$$ point, except for this --

All prohibitions in those area come from religious motivations

Not true. Many are the result of fanincail special-interests strongarming the government.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Absolute $$$ point, except for this --

All prohibitions in those area come from religious motivations

Not true. Many are the result of fanincail special-interests strongarming the government.

With regards to marijuana, you are absolutely dead-on. I should have separated that one. I was thinking along the generic banning of intoxicants like alcohol, laws against consensual adult sodomy (basically, defined as "anything not heterosexual missionary position intercouse by Dio in one debate I had with him...), and Blue Laws.

[battery chucka' one]

Just guessing here, but surely the Christian message transcends the concept of the nation state.

We are to submit ourselves to the laws of any authority we live under (unless such laws are immoral). The whole Christian nature of this country is why we allow any immigrants to begin with.

[PSUFAN]

Immigration policy gets looser as economic needs dictate...NOT because of morality, BCO.

If Christian Morality was to be observed in the New World, then the New World itself would have scant justification.

Or perhaps your sense of Christian Morality differs from mine. Perhaps it's perfectly moral to steal a continent, expend its resources with slave labor, and THEN wave in immigrants for the purposes of the Industrial Revolution - "because we're good Christians".

The development of the New World has economics as its primary cause - NOT Christian Morality.

[Goober McTuber]

Not true. Many are the result of fanincail special-interests strongarming the government.

Holy fucking spell-check, Batman.

[Cuda]

Swimmingly

You should have posted all this in Rootbeer's How Was Church? thread

[poptart]

If a legislator votes against abortion because they believe that the process is depriving citizen A (the fetus) of his/her rights, then fine. If a legislator votes to ban abortion solely on the basis of it being against his/her religious beliefs (or that of his/her constituents), then that is wrong. Imposing religious values on citizens, even if the majority hold those values, is trampling the rights of the minority and is a gross violation of our nation's religious neutrality.

You're really out of your mind.

Every nation legislates according to a view of prevailing morality.
The 'morality' stems directly from someone's religious P.O.V.
The entire criminal justice system functions for the purpose of enforcing somebody's view of morality.
I could go on with endless examples.

Why is prostitution illegal .... ?
Who is hurt by it .... ?
What is wrong with it ... ?

[RadioFan]

The whole Christian nature of this country is why we allow any immigrants to begin with.

Excellent point.

Sin,

[Tom In VA]

Code of Hammurabi

Secular law and order exists for that purpose. That the requirements of secular law and order and the requirements of a religious commandment intersect is not surprising. However, law, in and of itself has more to do with order and governance than it does religious morality or spirtual growth and development.

IMHO

[Mister Bushice]

If a legislator votes against abortion because they believe that the process is depriving citizen A (the fetus) of his/her rights, then fine. If a legislator votes to ban abortion solely on the basis of it being against his/her religious beliefs (or that of his/her constituents), then that is wrong. Imposing religious values on citizens, even if the majority hold those values, is trampling the rights of the minority and is a gross violation of our nation's religious neutrality.

You're really out of your mind.

Every nation legislates according to a view of prevailing morality.
The 'morality' stems directly from someone's religious P.O.V.
The entire criminal justice system functions for the purpose of enforcing somebody's view of morality.
I could go on with endless examples.

Why is prostitution illegal .... ?
Who is hurt by it .... ?
What is wrong with it ... ?

This reasoning is what is wrong with the world. It's why muslims kill, it's why people hate, it's why religion causes conflict.

I am NOT religious. I am also not alone in this belief.
I don't believe in your god, pop, but I am OK with you believing in your god.
I think abortion is a personal, not a government or religious choice, unless you adhere to a religion that forbids it. Otherwise, it is not yours to judge.
If I choose to dance naked in my backyard in praise of the new moon every month, I should be allowed to do so, provided I am not negatively influencing or affectiing others.
(PS BTW I don't moon worship, but I swim nekkid in my pool every chance I get.)

There is a distinct difference between generally accepted human behavior and "morality"
There is also a distinct difference between nation based socially accepted behaviors and morality. Social and moral behaviors that work in Japan won't necessarily work in the US, and VV. Same for many other countries

We are no longer a country of JUST christians. Even if they are the majority, they have no right to judge those who do not adhere to their faith.
The tables may turn some day when Christians are no longer the majority, and then what will happen? Will they accept a more open society?
What if Muslims become the prevailing faith in a decade? Should they be allowed to judge or impose their will on non muslims? Should they be allowed to do so now?

The Answer to that, for ANY faith, is NO. Religion has NO place in human affairs except as an option for those who choose to follow it.

Also,

Prostitution is not illegal everywhere.
If properly controlled, no one is hurt by it.
and nothing is wrong with human beings having safe consensual sex.

The fact that the religious right doesn't like people fucking unless they procreate has no bearing on humanity as a whole.

You gotta let go of the idea of religious morality controlling the masses, controlling societies. It just does not work.

Never has.



unless you expect the Spanish Inquisition. ;)

[poptart]

I think abortion is a personal, not a government or religious choice, unless you adhere to a religion that forbids it. Otherwise, it is not yours to judge.

You have arrived at the 'moral' conclusion that abortion is not murder, and people should be free to engage in it.
Other people have arrived at their own 'moral' conclusion that it IS murder, and a society has an obligation to protect it's MOST vulnerable beings.
Because anti-abortion folk's version of morality on this issue may in large part be due to a faith that they have, are they somehow forbidden to press for legislation which supports their view of morality .... ?

Morality is only acceptable if it is arrived at absent faith .... ?


You'll never be able to spin that take into anything other than discrimination.

[RadioFan]

Few weeks back in church, we had a couple of parishioners give a "guest sermon." Turned out that the folks were activists for the local minutemen organization and used their time to argue that anything short of a full wall on the U.S. border was "unChristian," that "human beings can be illegal," and that the whole notion that our nation had any right to keep people out at the border was fundamentally American, Christian, and moral. They urged us to join them in a letter writing campaign and march to get our legislators to grant all illegals out of the country and close our borders to all comers. They argued that it was our Christian duty to do all we could to force our government to keep all the folks out and make 'em work to become American citizens, in a legal, Christian way.

FYFY. And so?

Sin,

Some Oklahoma churches, hosting "talks" on "current events"

What a fucking crock of shit.

Agree.

[Mister Bushice]

I think abortion is a personal, not a government or religious choice, unless you adhere to a religion that forbids it. Otherwise, it is not yours to judge.

You have arrived at the 'moral' conclusion that abortion is not murder, and people should be free to engage in it.
Other people have arrived at their own 'moral' conclusion that it IS murder, and a society has an obligation to protect it's MOST vulnerable beings.

Then they should form their own society and forbid all who belong to their society from partaking in it. FWIW our current society allows it, so you'l have to form another one.

Because anti-abortion folk's version of morality on this issue may in large part be due to a faith that they have, are they somehow forbidden to press for legislation which supports their view of morality .... ?

No, they are some how forbidden from pressing their set of religious beliefs on others. (don't BS me that abortion is not a religious issue.)

how are they forbidden? Oh that pesky constitution and bill of rights thingy.

Morality is only acceptable if it is arrived at absent faith .... ?

Morality is not merely a matter of faith, but one of general social acceptance in the majority.

You'll never be able to spin that take into anything other than discrimination.

Oh that's crap. Feel free to never allow anyone you have control of / influence over to have an abortion, and I will also feel free to advise anyone I know to make the choice for themselves.

There's NOTHING discriminatory about that.

[poptart]

No, they are some how forbidden from pressing their set of religious beliefs on others. (don't BS me that abortion is not a religious issue.)

I've not set out to BS you.
I've been straight forward.
If a legislator's faith influences actions he takes on a 'moral' issue that is perfectly accpeptable.


Question for you, Bushice ........

Is abortion the taking of an innocent life, or are you just alright with innocent life being taken ........ because it is a choice that one should be free to make .... ?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

You're really out of your mind.

On the contrary, I'm being quite rational in realizing that imposing religious doctrines (via civil laws) on citizens in an ostensibly secular society is morally wrong. Period.

Every nation legislates according to a view of prevailing morality.
The 'morality' stems directly from someone's religious P.O.V.

False. To assume that morality necessarily requires a religious background is in itself prejudicial. Your statement basically would lead to the conclusion that only religious people are moral and/or that religious people are "more moral" than non-religious people. Horseshit.

The entire criminal justice system functions for the purpose of enforcing somebody's view of morality.

At one time, you could argue that point, but then again, we'd be discussing times/places in which the mixing of church and state were considered OK. In the 21st century, secular nations have NO business creating or enforcing laws that have purely religious origins. Laws should only be passed to protect the personal and property rights of its citizens, not "morality."

Why is prostitution illegal .... ?
Who is hurt by it .... ?
What is wrong with it ... ?

As someone has already mentioned, prostitution is not illegal everywhere. And quite frankly, prostitution should NOT be illegal if it is a contract between two truly consenting adults. What someone does with their own body is not the business of their neighbor or the state. As has been pointed out by a comedian (George Carlin, I think), sex is legal, selling is legal, so why is selling sex illegal? Judeo-Christian morality should have NO place in deciding that this business should be outlawed. Don't like it? Then don't become a prostitute and don't use one. Problem solved.

Same goes for drug use. Neither the state nor the citizens should have any say in prohibiting or restricting the use of intoxicants by a consenting, informed adult.

Same goes for polygamy/polygyny. If Muslim or LDS sets of individuals want to enter into a multiple hubby or multiple wife relationship, by what right does the state claim that they can't? Simple...none. The state is imposing the religious beliefs of one set of people wrongly on another and prohibiting the second set of people from expressing THEIR religious beliefs.

It's OK for laws to be passed that prevent one person from from infringing on the rights of others and for laws to be passed to protect children (so save the objection about legalizing pedophilia or child brides...kids are not "consenting adults"). OTOH, laws that are purely a case of religious folks regulating behavior but couching it in legal terms (Blue laws, prostitution, consensual sodomy laws) are horseshit.

Laws that were passed and enforced before on religious bases and handed down to us should be examined, and if it turns out that no rationale other than religious can be found for them, they should be tossed. That's what several states have already done with Blue Laws.

No citizen has the right to compel another to follow his religious dictates through force of law. To claim otherwise is unAmerican and morally repugnant.

[PSUFAN]

move this one to the Slaughterhouse...

(l-r; MtLR, Poppy)

[poptart]

Mike, you're a little jumpy and you assigned a whole lot of takes to me which are not mine.

Yeah, you're a libertarian, we get that.
You're also living in a state of perpetual denial and false hope if you think your pie-in-the-sky utopian wet dream will ever come close to being realized ..... anywhere.
Put down the bong, guy.

Prostitution, legal drug use, multiple wives (and who knows what else) makes for a healthy society for all, eh .... ?
Maybe we can all go barefoot and wear pretty mardi gras beads 365 days a year too.

A legislator factoring in his faith to his decisions is not the same as 'imposing religous doctrines' or 'forcing others to follow his religious dictates'.
I am not in favor of the state imposing a 10% tax on everyone, which will be donated to the Church of Jerry Fat Falwell.


You're stricken with paranoia and you need a triple shot of reality before hittin' the sack.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

You're stricken with paranoia and you need a triple shot of reality before hittin' the sack.

Nope. Just got some time to kill and figured that I'd put overzealous Christers (including some in my own congregation) in the cross-hairs.

The fact that anyone would take umbrage at repealing religiously-based laws or refer to my attacking them as "paranoia" just illustrates how deeply entrenched this enforcment of arbitrary (why Christian? Why not Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist?) religious codes is. To assume that the ideas I've put forth would result in "mardi gras" shows an arrogance toward beliefs other than your own. Forcing "Christian" rules in society does nothing to insure morality in society...as Jefferson noted, it merely makes half of us fools and the other half hypocrites. Contrary to what a lot of moralistic busybodies think, "Christians" aren't desperately holding all of our "lower natures" at bay with their laws. We are hardly teetering on the brink of anarchy. Society will roll on just fine even if prostitution, pot, and polygyny/polygamy were legalized. You'd still live your life, I would still live mine. If you don't like the new legal actions available...then don't do 'em. Morality is the province of homes and church. Period.

That America was founded by a bunch of folks who were at least nominally Christian and many laws reflect that, I will grant. However, the time has long since passed where we can justify laws that serve no purpose other than to enforce "Christian morals."

Your religious beliefs are deeply held, as are mine...I just don't happen to believe that it is my place, your place, or a legislators place, to create or enforce laws that cannot be defended on anything other than "moral" (i.e., sectarian religious) grounds. I am not arrogant enough to believe that my religious beliefs should be law. Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior but as an American, I recognize that He has no rightful influence on our nation's domestic or foreign policies or local, state, or federal law.

[Tom In VA]

The laws that reflect Chrisitianity are a coincidence. Coincidentally they also reflect Islam, Judaism etc.. etc...


Way to blame the Christers though MtLR.


Is tarring an feathering still en vogue ?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

False. To assume that morality necessarily requires a religious background is in itself prejudicial.

It is a simple statement of fact. You can consider yourself some kind of secular moralist till you're fucking blue in the face and it will never change the FACT that your so-called secular morality is founded on a Judeo-Christian system of belief.

Because you say so? Right.

It's OK for laws to be passed that prevent one person from from infringing on the rights of others and for laws to be passed to protect children (so save the objection about legalizing pedophilia or child brides...kids are not "consenting adults").

Says who? Who the fuck do you think you are attempting to impose your so-called morality on others?

Now I see that you're just trolling.

OTOH, laws that are purely a case of religious folks regulating behavior but couching it in legal terms (Blue laws, prostitution, consensual sodomy laws) are horseshit.

Actually it is exactly the same.

Only to an intellectually unsophisticated dullard like yourself.

No citizen has the right to compel another to follow his religious dictates through force of law. To claim otherwise is unAmerican and morally repugnant.

Just step back and listen to yourself, you fucking moronic hypocrite.

You've contributed, as usual, preceisely nothing to this discussion, other than your usual ad hominem Tourette's outbursts and unsupported contrary outbursts. Nice to see you following your usual m.o.

If you're going to pretend to have a stand in the discussion, at least contribute SOMETHING other than your usual tripe. It's obvious you're just throwing crap in to troll and drag this out.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The laws that reflect Chrisitianity are a coincidence. Coincidentally they also reflect Islam, Judaism etc.. etc...

Wow. You managed to name three religions that use the same Old Testament. Maybe, just maybe, THAT might explain the possible overlap in many of their behavioral prohibitions.

That was waaaaay too easy.

Besides, I've made it clear that I've no problems with laws that can be justified in the interest of protecting the rights of citizens. Several laws in the Judeo-Christian tradition also cover this (thou shalt not murder, steal, yadda-yadda...). Of course, even a dimwit realizes that most non-Judeo-Christian civilized cultures have somehow managed to also hit on these laws.

I only have problems with the laws that seek to do nothing more than impose "morality" on the behavior of consenting adults. I don't care if the moral rules come from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any other denomination - if a law can't be justified on a "protecting the personal or property rights" issue, then on what basis can it be valid law?

Way to blame the Christers though MtLR.

The whole spiel started with someone in my denomination (Episcopalian) misusing the pulpit to argue that as Christians, we had an obligation to get legislators to change government laws. I am as opposed to left-wing Christers pushing their agendas as I am to right-wing Christers. Both sides...hell ALL denominations/religions should keep their dogma out of my government.

[Tom In VA]

I guess you missed my Code of Hammurabi post. Thanks.


And the ideas of the founders was really to keep government away from religion, specifically, imposing a religion on the people.


Saw an interesting show over the weekend. People relate Sodom and Gomhora (sp?) to all kinds of prurient and sexual things ... ergo "sodom"y.

In reality according to this show, the real thing that brough Sodom and Gomohora down was lack of compassion. I found that an interesting take.

[Dinsdale]

If I choose to dance naked in my backyard in praise of the new moon every month, I should be allowed to do so

Legal in Oregon, even in full view of your neighbors. Legal to walk down the street naked, for that matter, so long as one isn't doing it with the "intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."


But the do-gooders are trying to change that as we speak. Party poopers.

[PSUFAN]

Where a do-gooder stands in opposition to a publicly nude Dinsdale, I applaud him.

I guess you missed my Code of Hammurabi post. Thanks.

You're thanking him for scrolling past one of your posts? Interesting debate strategy.

[Dinsdale]

You're thanking him for scrolling past one of your posts?

That being the case, I'm guessing his "RACK Dinsdale!" 's will be flowing like wine any minute now.

[Cuda]

If I choose to dance naked in my backyard in praise of the new moon every month, I should be allowed to do so

Legal in Oregon, even in full view of your neighbors. Legal to walk down the street naked, for that matter, so long as one isn't doing it with the "intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."


.

If vomiting ever comes to be considered a sign of sexual arousal, Bushice is gona be in a shitload of trouble

[Dinsdale]

Where a do-gooder stands in opposition to a publicly nude Dinsdale, I applaud him.

And what the hell are you talking about, Slappy?

Should I grace the world with my nude form, they'd declare an international holiday.

I'm much like Adonis, only better looking.

I'm Attila the Hun with a marginally better wardrobe.

I'm like Richard the Third, only with two functional arms.


Pray the One-Eyed Dinsworm doesn't show up. He'd run your OL and laugh as your spotted ass disappeared over the hill.

[Mister Bushice]

No, they are some how forbidden from pressing their set of religious beliefs on others. (don't BS me that abortion is not a religious issue.)

I've not set out to BS you.
I've been straight forward.
If a legislator's faith influences actions he takes on a 'moral' issue that is perfectly accpeptable.


Question for you, Bushice ........

Is abortion the taking of an innocent life, or are you just alright with innocent life being taken ........ because it is a choice that one should be free to make .... ?

r

now we're getting to the debate on when a fetus is considered a human being.

Early term abortions of a blob are still legal, and I see no problem there, neither does the law. The religious right thinks otherwise, so they are free to not have abortions. See how well it works?

Late term abortions should not be allowed, and I think most everyone agrees on that. After the brain and nervous system are in place, it is a being and I don't think abortion should be allowed unless there is something seriously wrong with the fetus that will kill the mother.

[Tom In VA]

I guess you missed my Code of Hammurabi post. Thanks.

You're thanking him for scrolling past one of your posts? Interesting debate strategy.

I wasn't debating. I offered general comments on the subject matter and MtLRs post.