Palin's unmarried teen daughter is pregnant

[quote name='homeland']
and why wasn't she on the pill... would have thought all teenage girls would be popping those now a days.[/QUOTE]

Not one's with abstinence only mothers.
 
[quote name='Callandor']Even better, now his page has been deleted.

Considering it said "fuck the media" after it was set to private, I wonder why it was deleted...[/QUOTE]

The GOP?
 
I thought Palin was against birth control?
She should have known better to shit out a kid at that age. Women that old aren't supposed to have kids and now they have a downsyndromed baby because of it.:roll:
The daughter is kind of hot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HuBu']He can't relate to the average people. He is trying to play both sides. Obama is always talking about his faith in Christ. Yet when they asked him about abortion, he supports the woman's choice to choose. When they asked him about marriage, he answers that it is the union between man and woman, but i don't want to infringe on civil rights. plainly, he believes in one thing yet does another because he doesn't want to alienate others. obama can't be too black where he scares the white voters, and cant be too white and alienate the black voters.[/QUOTE]

God your as bad as thrustbucket. You ever think that maybe some of us can think outside of our own small worlds? I know thats a hard thing especially for conservatives to understand....but some of us can do it. I get harped on all the time for saying you can objectively view quality for something in a game....but I take that stand in real life too. You can take yourself outside your own views to see the other side or even admit the other side might or probably is right.

I think abortion is wrong....but support a womans right to choice(hate this freaking issue). I am uncomfortable with the idea of Gay Marriage. Yet support it full heartedly because its not against the constitution nor is it anything that hurts me or America so I shouldnt stand in their way because of my own fears. Obama gets accused all the time of being two faced on the issue. Truth is I think the man needs to take more stands and make things more clear. I think his taking McCains $5 million is rich response is disgusting and annoy and so are many other things he has done. However, on MOST issues I feel he is an honest genuine person that is just like me....someone that gets himself in trouble for thinking reasonably and philosophically about many things vs doing like most ignorant Americans and instantly going with his gut and stating his own ignorant opinion must be the right way of doing things.

You can say what you want, but ill take someone that over thinks things any day over someone like McCain who like Bush obviously judges things off his gut ad instantly responds. He isnt even president yet and he has already made major blunders not only in his own campaign(Palin alone was moronic but the list is huge)but also on subjects like Russia and Iran where he could have seriously hurt us.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']God your as bad as thrustbucket. [/QUOTE]

Lol.
How is that?

You either don't read my posts, or don't understand them, as I don't disagree with you much. Or maybe I need to dumb them down further.... Oh well.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus'] You can take yourself outside your own views to see the other side or even admit the other side might or probably is right.
[/QUOTE]

The real key is to not define your thinking as being on a "side." Look at each issue individual, search your morals and values for social issues, your knowledge of what is best for the country on practical issues and come to a stance on each.

For most there will probably be patterns that result from this that are closer to one of the parties, be it democrat, republican, libertarian etc., but it's not being two faced to have stances on some issues that are in line with one party and stances on others that are aligned with a different party.

That just shows you are thinking independently and not being a blind sheep that just follows the party line on everything without doing any real independent thinking or soul searching.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I think abortion is wrong....but support a womans right to choice(hate this freaking issue). I am uncomfortable with the idea of Gay Marriage. Yet support it full heartedly because its not against the constitution nor is it anything that hurts me or America so I shouldnt stand in their way because of my own fears.[/quote]

See - I'm alot more laissez-faire in attitude but I respect your opinions. Why can't more of the conservatives have the decency to leave the rights of the people alone - why do they feel the need to ban behaviors that will never even affect their lives?
 
[quote name='camoor']See - I'm alot more laissez-faire in attitude but I respect your opinions. Why can't more of the conservatives have the decency to leave the rights of the people alone - why do they feel the need to ban behaviors that will never even affect their lives?[/QUOTE]

They typically don't.

Abortion, to them, is not about banning someone's right, it's about protecting the right of the one getting killed without doing anything wrong. You can disagree with that view if you want, but don't make it sound like their goal is to take away rights when from their pov they are doing the opposite.

Gay Rights, yes that's true. That is almost entirely religious driven. Although most conservatives I know simply don't want the government involved in people's personal lives and relationships period. Until recently, it hasn't been an issue for them to make a stink about because "marriage" is not an issue commonly challenged politically.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, please list some more "behaviors" that conservatives want to "ban" that don't affect others.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Lol.
How is that?

You either don't read my posts, or don't understand them, as I don't disagree with you much. Or maybe I need to dumb them down further.... Oh well.[/QUOTE]

Like iv shown and said. You post links on things like global warming that flip flop on the issue then act like its a legit source. Everything you say is pro right and anti left. And as my post which you ignored or disregarded in the RNC showed you talk great about the RNC and Palins speach while you disregaded Obamas.

You only see and hear what you want to.

dmaul thats essentially what I do. Unlike thrust who try to claim moderacy I really am. I lean a little to the left and openly admit that. But when it comes to derming how to vote or who to support I dont just follow my own blind ignorant views. I try and ponder through the situation.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Like iv shown and said. You post links on things like global warming that flip flop on the issue then act like its a legit source. Everything you say is pro right and anti left. And as my post which you ignored or disregarded in the RNC showed you talk great about the RNC and Palins speach while you disregaded Obamas. [/quote]
Well this is no place for petty inaccurate personal attacks, but you couldn't be more wrong. Show me where I disregarded Obama's speach.
Show me where I defended Pallin or McCain. All I did was share articles for discussion. For the record, I was very unimpressed with her speech. I didn't hear anything there I wanted to hear other than a little bit about energy. The rest was more of the same I've come to despise from Republicans.

I did the same for global warming. I was not arguing any "position" on global warming so your inept knee-jerk analysis of me is assanine.

You only see and hear what you want to.
Maybe. But seeing how poorly you comprehended several of my posts and points and made vast assumptions about links, It's clear the same could be said about you.

dmaul thats essentially what I do. Unlike thrust who try to claim moderacy I really am. I lean a little to the left and openly admit that. But when it comes to derming how to vote or who to support I dont just follow my own blind ignorant views. I try and ponder through the situation.
You just said exactly what almost everyone here, including myself, believes about themselves. Obviously doesn't make it true though, does it?
 
MSI thrust just makes shit up, he will say absolutely anything and forget what he said within minutes.

Just ignore him.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well this is no place for petty inaccurate personal attacks, but you couldn't be more wrong. Show me where I disregarded Obama's speach.
Show me where I defended Pallin or McCain. All I did was share articles for discussion. For the record, I was very unimpressed with her speech. I didn't hear anything there I wanted to hear other than a little bit about energy. The rest was more of the same I've come to despise from Republicans.

I did the same for global warming. I was not arguing any "position" on global warming so your inept knee-jerk analysis of me is assanine.


Maybe. But seeing how poorly you comprehended several of my posts and points and made vast assumptions about links, It's clear the same could be said about you.


You just said exactly what almost everyone here, including myself, believes about themselves. Obviously doesn't make it true though, does it?[/QUOTE]

Im not even going to make a long post. On Global warming I showed how the "articles" you posted flip flopped on the issue(which you ignored and just kept whining about how the issue isnt resolved)and then I pointed out that while the second article seemed to atleast have some scientific data in it it was posted on a site that ended the article with crap mocking liberals and anyone that believes in global warming. You ignored the fact that your articles were junk and biased. Again keeping this short because no matter what I say as most closet conservatives hiding behind the moderate or libertarian lable nowdays you wont change here is what you said about Palins speach.

At least one UK media outlet thought her speech was "stunning" and "popped Obama's Balloon". How much that is true, or not, is likely dependent on how much you love Obama and hate Republicans (as witnessed by preliminary posting in this thread). But I find it a lot more interesting what the foreign media thinks, since what they think of us seems so important to so many today.

You probably wont even see whats wrong with it. But you clearly attack the left and anyone that disliked her speech. As I said you are so owned by the Republican party I wouldn't be surprised if your ass has a Dubya was here tattoo above your crack. Face it, you are a joke to anyone that isnt exaclty as biased as you. The sad thing is you obviously have a political knoweldge and an extreamly intelligent mind.....you just are so far to the right and so blind to the fact that you are...that you say such ignorant and biased things.

Edit- And you can say what you want that im just convincing myself that im going through a fair and rational method to come to descions. If you look at my posts you can clearly see me saying negative things about the party im voting for. Somethign you rarely see you and others do. You can clearly see me saying I feel strongly about an issue yet vote the opposite of what I feel because its what rational. Again not something you do. Everything you do is far to the right and in line with their policies. Again you have been shown to be wrong.
 
[quote name='Msut77']MSI thrust just makes shit up, he will say absolutely anything and forget what he said within minutes.

Just ignore him.[/QUOTE]

I plan to after this post. Iv wasted far more time on him then I should have. I just cant believe someone can be so smart....yet so ignorant and biased.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I plan to after this post. Iv wasted far more time on him then I should have. I just cant believe someone can be so smart....yet so ignorant and biased.[/QUOTE]

I think he lives in his own little world with very little human interaction.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, please list some more "behaviors" that conservatives want to "ban" that don't affect others.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's just banning. It's just attempting to legislate morals in general that grates on my.

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

Just on down the line. The government should not be in the business of legislating morals, religious beliefs etc., be it banning something or imposing something.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think it's just banning. It's just attempting to legislate morals in general that grates on my.

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

Just on down the line. The government should not be in the business of legislating morals, religious beliefs etc., be it banning something or imposing something.[/QUOTE]

^^^^^^^^^^
Prooving that organized religion is the stupidest and most deadly thing man has ever come up with.
 
Msutt is just a sad panda because he's on everyone's ignore list including mine since the beginning of time.

MSI, look. You can see me how you want, but if you haven't ignored me already - just know two things:

1- I hate republicans.

2- Many of my posts are simply to provoke discussion. I am not presenting an agenda. The quoted passage you say is proof of my bias is absurd. I was merely posting a link I found, to see what people would say about it. I DID NOT SAY I AGREED WITH IT. If I had, you would have a case for my being so biased, but I didn't.

I think your problem is that you assume everything I post, especially links, are my agenda and view. They aren't. I have very little agenda.

I simply gravitate to playing devils advocate on these forums. And since the majority of posters are Left wing obama love festers, I tend to come off as defending the other side a lot. But I don't. I just feel it's necessary in order to have a discussion, otherwise every thread here would be a bunch of "Republican bad, I hate bush, Conservative suck, Obama is god..." posts. Maybe that's a fault of mine, for just wanting to stir the pot. But you are still dead wrong in your assesment of my biasedness or party affiliation.

What I would really like to discuss? I would love for a thread to exist about Ron Paul and what he's doing, his own convention. That's interesting to me. But nobody here will discuss that shit because everyone on this forum is a full subscriber to the Republican vs. Democrat drama.

And finally, you are the one that made it personal. So if you can't take the heat of it back, then put me on ignore.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']They typically don't.

Abortion, to them, is not about banning someone's right, it's about protecting the right of the one getting killed without doing anything wrong. You can disagree with that view if you want, but don't make it sound like their goal is to take away rights when from their pov they are doing the opposite.

Gay Rights, yes that's true. That is almost entirely religious driven. Although most conservatives I know simply don't want the government involved in people's personal lives and relationships period. Until recently, it hasn't been an issue for them to make a stink about because "marriage" is not an issue commonly challenged politically.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, please list some more "behaviors" that conservatives want to "ban" that don't affect others.[/quote]

I feel an REM "End of the World" word avalanche coming on...

Stem cell research
Sex education in public schools
Birth control in public schools
Morning-after pill
Recognition of Wicca by the military (or as Bush W says, "witchcraft")
Books with obscenities (lookin' at you Palin --> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html )
Harry Potter books and/or read-a-longs in public schools, libraries, etc
Nudity (artistic or otherwise - see Ashcroft's blind lady justice for a good example)
Dramatic, tasteful depictions of sex in movies (exploitative violence on 3pm network TV is just fine - exploitative sex parody in movies is just fine - again, please see "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated")
"Indecent" content on airwaves (IE whatever happens to offend the handful of people writing to the FCC)

...but at least they don't want to ban Christmas like those lousy no-good Grinch liberals! :lol:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think it's just banning. It's just attempting to legislate morals in general that grates on my.

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

Just on down the line. The government should not be in the business of legislating morals, religious beliefs etc., be it banning something or imposing something.[/QUOTE]

But should they be in the business of legislating or banning things that are AGAINST ones religious beliefs? What you might fail to understand is that the few people that do fight those things, do it because THEY feel YOUR views are being imposed on theirs. Yet somehow the argument of having someone legislate and impose their views on you only seems to apply to liberals.
Just food for thought.

Everything you listed, except MAYBE some in the first, can and should be dealt with on local levels.

If their is a community that has a high percentage of muslims, and they want to pray in school, I'd put it up for a vote. Simple as that.

And I have roughly the same argument for most of that. If you really think about it, it's the desire to make unified laws across a multi-cultural society that makes these "hot button" issues. Either side you take, you feel your being imposed upon. So instead of arguing endlessly who's grand unified rules should exist for everyone, my answer is to do it locally.
 
[quote name='camoor']I feel an REM "End of the World" word avalanche coming on...[/quote]
It's hard for me to argue against either of your lists, since I personally agree with a lot of it. But in light of some people like MSI Magus not quite understanding what it means to play devils advocate, let me make the disclaimer that I am in this post. But let me add to that disclaimer that I seriously don't think most "conservatives" are against all the things you list. It's a diminishing group of people in the bible belt that usually push what your against, not conservatives in general.

Stem cell research
Make it a state issue. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the cells used to do what stem cells are wanted for don't have to come from fetal stems.

Sex education in public schools
State/County issue. See above post.

Birth control in public schools
I'm fine with that, as long as we hand out free bullets too ;)
Seriously, why is that needed? If we are going to go that far, let's just lace school lunches with sexual repressors.

Morning-after pill
I don't know anyone that has a problem with this. Not one conservative (personally)

Recognition of Wicca by the military (or as Bush W says, "witchcraft")
Don't know anyone with a problem with this, except maybe Michael Savage.

Books with obscenities (lookin' at you Palin --> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html )
Harry Potter books and/or read-a-longs in public schools, libraries, etc

If the majority of the community that supports/pays for those places/books want that, I have no issue with it.

Nudity (artistic or otherwise - see Ashcroft's blind lady justice for a good example)
Dramatic, tasteful depictions of sex in movies (exploitative violence on 3pm network TV is just fine - exploitative sex parody in movies is just fine - again, please see "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated")

"Indecent" content on airwaves (IE whatever happens to offend the handful of people writing to the FCC)
The rating systems seem to work fine. I've never heard of anyone trying to completely ban all that stuff. If there are, you are increasingly talking about more and more of a minority of people here.

You need to keep in mind one thing: Most conservatives are not interested in LEGISLATING a lot of that stuff to everyone across the entire country. However, the people that do, are conservative.

...but at least they don't want to ban Christmas like those lousy no-good Grinch liberals! :lol:
Again, if a city/county/state wanted to, put it to a vote and let them.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']But should they be in the business of legislating or banning things that are AGAINST ones religious beliefs? What you might fail to understand is that the few people that do fight those things, do it because THEY feel YOUR views are being imposed on theirs. [/quote]

And they'd be wrong. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force them to do anything or ban them from doing anything. It just offends them. Banning gay marriage directly takes rights away from people. Forcing organized, teacher led prayer in schools isolates those with different beliefs in the room (I have no problem with voluntary student led prayer groups).

That's the difference. Conservatives want to directly take away rights or impose their beliefs. Liberals simply want these social issue left up to the individual and to hell with anyone offended by them having the right. People need to live their lives and not try to force others to share their values and beliefs. To each their own. Some issues are constitutional--like separation of church and state in regards to school prayer.

Everything you listed, except MAYBE some in the first, can and should be dealt with on local levels.

Most of these are things that shouldn't be dealt with at all, as they should be left to the individual or the constitution is clear (i..e separation of church and state=no organized, led prayer in schools).

If their is a community that has a high percentage of muslims, and they want to pray in school, I'd put it up for a vote. Simple as that.

Not led prayer, because of separation of church and state. Student led prayer groups are fine in my view, and shouldn't need a vote.
 
It's kinda funny that these issues, are actually..issues..:lol:

Makes me really hate religion all together when people who are really religious feel that since they are so religious they have more/better morals than others and try and push their beliefs/views on them as well. It's just insane.

I just can't believe we've progressed this far in life, and yet, some of these issues have yet to be resolved. It's amazing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And they'd be wrong. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force them to do anything or ban them from doing anything. It just offends them. Banning gay marriage directly takes rights away from people. Forcing organized, teacher led prayer in schools isolates those with different beliefs in the room (I have no problem with voluntary student led prayer groups).[/quote]
That's basically what I was talking about. In groups. It would be insane to force an athiest teacher to lead a prayer, and I don't know anyone who is proposing that.

That's the difference. Conservatives want to directly take away rights or impose their beliefs. Liberals simply want these social issue left up to the individual and to hell with anyone offended by them having the right. People need to live their lives and not try to force others to share their values and beliefs. To each their own. Some issues are constitutional--like separation of church and state in regards to school prayer.

I think the words "over-generalizing" is an understatement here.

Much like the word "liberal" has been been vilified for those on the right, clearly the same is true for "conservative", as evident by your posts. It seems very much to me a massive misunderstanding.

Here we are walking a fine line where I think the majority of conservatives (even republicans, if you can call them conservative) agree with what I bolded. The fact that you believe otherwise shows the real sickness in this country of misunderstanding each other in general.

Most people, that consider themselves conservative, agree with your choice/freedom speech. IMO.



Most of these are things that shouldn't be dealt with at all, as they should be left to the individual or the constitution is clear (i..e separation of church and state=no organized, led prayer in schools).
I agree. And even if they need to be dealt with, I think it should be dealt with locally first, if possible.

But I can't take the view that all things should be open for all people to do at all times, and if people are offended, tough shit. Most people don't want to see public sex, for example, or especially their children to see it. That's why I feel it's important to rely on the local communities, as people of like mind usually congregate, let them set the standards and local policies they are comfortable with and least offended by.



[quote name='lilboo']It's kinda funny that these issues, are actually..issues..:lol:

Makes me really hate religion all together when people who are really religious feel that since they are so religious they have more/better morals than others and try and push their beliefs/views on them as well. It's just insane.

I just can't believe we've progressed this far in life, and yet, some of these issues have yet to be resolved. It's amazing.[/QUOTE]

I hate to use you as an example, lilboo, but this is what I'm talking about. We are in a culture war. And we are in this war because neither side can tolerate, learn to tolerate, or compromise.

Hate for religion leads to being intolerant of the religious. And vice versa.
 
I agree! But let's face it.. it wouldn't BE that way if people didn't push their religious beliefs on other people!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']They typically don't.

Abortion, to them, is not about banning someone's right, it's about protecting the right of the one getting killed without doing anything wrong. You can disagree with that view if you want, but don't make it sound like their goal is to take away rights when from their pov they are doing the opposite.

Gay Rights, yes that's true. That is almost entirely religious driven. Although most conservatives I know simply don't want the government involved in people's personal lives and relationships period. Until recently, it hasn't been an issue for them to make a stink about because "marriage" is not an issue commonly challenged politically.[/quote]

I don't agree with you on the abortion thing. I fully think the main pillar of pro-life support is organized by religous leaders in a top-down fashion.

How else, statistically speaking, could so many Fundie/Evangelist/Baptist/Catholic people come to one conclusion and so many non-religious or non-dogmatic people come to another? Are religious people more compassionate, more thoughtful, are they predisposed to think of fetuses differently? Maybe, but from what I've seen, I doubt it.

IMO you're an exception - I think you've really thought the issue through and settled on something you believe with your heart and your mind. Unfortunately I think most of the people that share your opinion about abortion got it from their religion, and did not actually think about it at all.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's basically what I was talking about. In groups. It would be insane to force an athiest teacher to lead a prayer, and I don't know anyone who is proposing that.[/quote]

It shouldn't be led by any teachers period. Teachers are paid state employees, they can't promote any religion on duty.

And prayer in the class room is not right as it's uncomfortable for students not of that religion and atheist students. The only way I can accept it is allow voluntary student led prayer groups in schools before or after the school day. Some don't even like that as they think use of school facilities (built and maintained by tax payer dollars) can't be used for religious functions per separation of church and state. I don't go that far. As long as it's not during the school day hours, and is entirely a voluntary extracurricular activity I have no problems.

Most people, that consider themselves conservative, agree with your choice/freedom speech. IMO.

Probably so, I'm really only talking about social conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Bush's core support base. That's really what people associate with conservatives/republicans these days (and presumably why you hate republicans--on top of their big spending).


But I can't take the view that all things should be open for all people to do at all times, and if people are offended, tough shit. Most people don't want to see public sex, for example, or especially their children to see it.

Don't obfuscate the issue with a straw man example. Of course there has to be laws and regulations. But not on people's own private behavior that doesn't directly effect other people. Sex in public directly affects other people as it's a lewd act in public. But what people do in their own bedroom with others consenting adults is none of anyone's business. Same with abortion etc. None of this stuff directly effects other people, and people and especially the government, should keep their nose out of personal social issues.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.[/quote]

That's a good list. Part of the problem I ran into was that conservative Christians are not just about banning things, they're also always trying to find a way to inject their religion into all sorts of inappropriate places (such as currency, the court system, and public schools)
 
[quote name='camoor']That's a good list. Part of the problem I ran into was that conservative Christians are not just about banning things, they're also always trying to find a way to inject their religion into all sorts of inappropriate places (such as currency, the court system, and public schools)[/QUOTE]

Yep, that's a lot of what I was getting at above. The attempted trampling of separation of church and state by those groups is one of my top social annoyances.
 
[quote name='camoor']

IMO you're an exception - I think you've really thought the issue through and settled on something you believe with your heart and your mind. Unfortunately I think most of the people that share your opinion about abortion got it from their religion, and did not actually think about it at all.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I guess it's hard for me to argue for the conservative side, which I feel I can and should do, because I have sympathy for them. But it's hard for me because I think i'm far more Libertarian than Conservative, which puts me at a very strange crossroads with you liberals, in total agreeance on many things, and polar opposite on others.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, that's a lot of what I was getting at above. The attempted trampling of separation of church and state by those groups is one of my top social annoyances.[/QUOTE]

I really don't practice a religion but none of that stuff ever bothered me. I strongly feel that the whole "seperation of church from state" issue has been taken far far further in modern times than what was meant when it was written. All that was ever intended by it, imo, was to keep church's from directly taking over aspects of government. Other than that, they can and should be treated like any other lobby group. I don't understand why the rules are different as soon as a lobby group is identified as a religion.

I have to say that I find the whole tolerance sale of the left very oddly hypocritical, in a way. They (not necessarilly you) champion themselves so much about choice and freedom of expression. See, I see religious/spiritual expression as no different than any other expression. I believe that if enough people congregate, for any expressive purpose, or any philosophy, they can and should mold their surroundings around them to accommodate those things. And I think the government, in a limited capacity of course, should be willing to endorse some of it (e.g. creating libraries that might specialize in the communities interest more). It's just strange that religious belief is treated as the red-headed bastard child of expression by the left.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Thanks. I guess it's hard for me to argue for the conservative side, which I feel I can and should do, because I have sympathy for them. But it's hard for me because I think i'm far more Libertarian than Conservative, which puts me at a very strange crossroads with you liberals, in total agreeance on many things, and polar opposite on others.[/quote]

Haha you're welcome. I may get a bit "animated" at times but I do see what you're saying about abortion. It's just really hard for me to see it that way when I can't see what a
 
[quote name='camoor']Haha you're welcome. I may get a bit "animated" at times but I do see what you're saying about abortion. It's just really hard for me to see it that way when I can't see what a
 
There's a disconnect between those in Washington and those outside of it Almost always will and almost always has been in this country. Even though the majority of people may want one thing, those in Government take specific samples to get the results they want so they can say 'see, this is what I should do'.
 
I was going to create a new thread about this, but it seems like it would fit in here fairly well.

I was talking to a cousin earlier and she told me where she wanted to go to college. I can't remember the name, but it was some christian school in Arkansas. She said she wanted to be a teacher.

After they left, i got to thinking about something. In teaching at a public school, she'd be required to teach evolution, assuming she was teaching in a grade where it is discussed.

Now in my mind, somebody who has a education rooted in religion couldn't possibly be that effective at teaching evolution. It's something that would go against their very beliefs and i feel they'd give it lip service at best.

So what do you all think?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I was going to create a new thread about this, but it seems like it would fit in here fairly well.

I was talking to a cousin earlier and she told me where she wanted to go to college. I can't remember the name, but it was some christian school in Arkansas. She said she wanted to be a teacher.

After they left, i got to thinking about something. In teaching at a public school, she'd be required to teach evolution, assuming she was teaching in a grade where it is discussed.

Now in my mind, somebody who has a education rooted in religion couldn't possibly be that effective at teaching evolution. It's something that would go against their very beliefs and i feel they'd give it lip service at best.

So what do you all think?[/QUOTE]

You can easily teach both, depending on the exact faction of "Christianity" she belongs to though.

But the majority of them do teach evolution. Evolution is the modern accepted form of science to explain adaptation in biology. That's it. It doesn't contradict any Christian teaching really.

Even the dyed in th wool "The world/humans have only been here 7,000 years" people can make it fit.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You can easily teach both, depending on the exact faction of "Christianity" she belongs to though.

But the majority of them do teach evolution. Evolution is the modern accepted form of science to explain adaptation in biology. That's it. It doesn't contradict any Christian teaching really.

Even the dyed in th wool "The world/humans have only been here 7,000 years" people can make it fit.[/QUOTE]

Please. Literal interpretation of the bible doesn't allow room for God's perfect creations to change or modify.

That said, if a person considers themselves ethical, respectful of their profession, and someone who takes their job seriously, they'll do a good job of whatever they are asked to do.

What I don't get in this day and age (and this goes for doctors who don't want to perform abortions) is the idea that, if people's jobs interfere with their religious beliefs, that the JOB should change, and they don't consider that perhaps THEY should leave the workplace.

Now, something like allowing time for daily muslim prayer is likely to be a recurring theme wherever you look for work, and it's short, so it could be accommodated easily. If smokers get to step outside for 10 minutes 3 or more times a day, why not this as well?

Now, however, if you would insist on taking off the whole month during which Ramadan falls, and collect vacation pay for the whole time (or simply leave the job and expect to come back in a month), well, tough, pal.

If an educator feels that their work is being conflicted by their religion such that stress is the result, don't even entertain the idea that the job should change. Think about the possibility of you not being an educator anymore. Or go teach math.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You can easily teach both, depending on the exact faction of "Christianity" she belongs to though.

But the majority of them do teach evolution. Evolution is the modern accepted form of science to explain adaptation in biology. That's it. It doesn't contradict any Christian teaching really.

Even the dyed in th wool "The world/humans have only been here 7,000 years" people can make it fit.[/quote]
I didn't say you couldn't, i just don't think you could be that effective.

Look at it this way, how effective could an atheist be as a preacher?

I don't see how you can say it doesn't contradict any Christian teaching though, I'd like more explanation on that. It gives completely different explanations for how we came to be here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Please. Literal interpretation of the bible doesn't allow room for God's perfect creations to change or modify.

That said, if a person considers themselves ethical, respectful of their profession, and someone who takes their job seriously, they'll do a good job of whatever they are asked to do.

What I don't get in this day and age (and this goes for doctors who don't want to perform abortions) is the idea that, if people's jobs interfere with their religious beliefs, that the JOB should change, and they don't consider that perhaps THEY should leave the workplace.

Now, something like allowing time for daily muslim prayer is likely to be a recurring theme wherever you look for work, and it's short, so it could be accommodated easily. If smokers get to step outside for 10 minutes 3 or more times a day, why not this as well?

Now, however, if you would insist on taking off the whole month during which Ramadan falls, and collect vacation pay for the whole time (or simply leave the job and expect to come back in a month), well, tough, pal.

If an educator feels that their work is being conflicted by their religion such that stress is the result, don't even entertain the idea that the job should change. Think about the possibility of you not being an educator anymore. Or go teach math.[/quote]
I'll agree with what you said about being ethical and professional. I would hope that that is all anyone would need to do their jobs as well as possible.

There are things that would make a red flag pop up for me though. If say a teacher wanted creationism taught in school. That would make me question their commitment to teaching science.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, it makes me question their commitment to knowledge, let alone teaching.[/quote]

Brainwashing is a form of teaching.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']
I don't see how you can say it doesn't contradict any Christian teaching though, I'd like more explanation on that. It gives completely different explanations for how we came to be here.[/QUOTE]

By definition, evolution doesn't attempt to answer where we came from or how it all started. There are several theories, and they don't amount to much more than guesses because it wasn't observed. Evolution just explains progressive change in species, which is observable.

That's how it's compatible. I'm not saying that creationism should be taught in school. I'm just saying that someone that calls himself Christian, isn't automatically by default, an enemy of the theory of evolution.

I know several people that went to a church-run university. They learned all the standard theories of evolution in class, some of the professors are even atheists. And when they go to religion class, they discuss the "enhanced theories/beliefs" and how it ties into evolution. They are completely separate.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] See, I see religious/spiritual expression as no different than any other expression. [/QUOTE]

In large I agree. But I support separation of church and state much more seriously than you do.

It wasn't written to keep religion from taking over government, it was written to keep the government from being tied to one religion and oppressing people with other beliefs. Remember the country was first settled largely by people fleeing religious oppression.

Stuff like prayer in schools if led by teachers etc. is just too much of a slippery slope. Same with faith based programs getting funding, to many will promote their views on top of helping people and I don't want my tax dollars going to that (this is one of my only gripes with Obama's plans).

In god we trust on money doesn't bother me much as it's not promoting any specific religion, and as an Atheist I don't worry about silly stuff like generic references to god.

But in general, I think it's best for religion to be an entirely private enterprise and government should stay out of it as much as possible and keep it out of the curriculum and school day activities at public schools etc.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Having unwed sex is a "grave sin" according to the Bible.[/quote]


Well sex was the result of sin anyway.

All I'll say is that if woman can get out of taking care of a baby by aborting it then men shouldn't be forced to pay child support if she doesn't. Fair is fair.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But in general, I think it's best for religion to be an entirely private enterprise and government should stay out of it as much as possible and keep it out of the curriculum and school day activities at public schools etc.[/QUOTE]

Well it would be hypocritical of me to argue that point with you. Especially when my wish list for such things is much much longer :).
 
bread's done
Back
Top