Disaster

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim please speak in terms of recent history ..

The GOP love affair with Israel is new to the political landscape .. q google search it all there

Hell Republicans and many others won’t vote for a catholic because they think they will have allegiance to the pope not the nation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim please speak in terms of recent history ignore all the good that religion has done, when trying to argue that religion has done any good.

Recently? The right-wing nuts ta the New York Times recently posted a study showing that conservatives (thanks to their religious beliefs), give more money to charity than liberals, despite making less money on average. Do you think that it's bad public policy to rely on beliefs that incentivize people to be more charitable?

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

In Psychology today, an article showing that people who identify as religious, consider themselves to be happier, than athiests. DO you think it's bad public policy, to rely on beliefs that make people feel happier?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...people-happier

Here, according to the CDC, religious people are less likely to get divorced. Do you think it's bad public policy to rely on beliefs that keep the nuclear family intact, which prevents all kinds of awful societal problems?

https://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divor...cs_by_Religion

Here, according to the right wing nuts at the Huffington Post, religious people commit less crime. Do you think it's bad public policy to rely on beliefs that result in less crime?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-ti...dy-f_b_4384046

"Hell Republicans and many others won’t vote for a catholic because they think they will have allegiance to the pope not the nation"

You're suggesting religious politicians have a hard time in the GOP? That's a new one.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Jim please speak in terms of recent history ignore all the good that religion has done, when trying to argue that religion has done any good.

Recently? The right-wing nuts ta the New York Times recently posted a study showing that conservatives (thanks to their religious beliefs), give more money to charity than liberals, despite making less money on average. Do you think that it's bad public policy to rely on beliefs that incentivize people to be more charitable?

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

In Psychology today, an article showing that people who identify as religious, consider themselves to be happier, than athiests. DO you think it's bad public policy, to rely on beliefs that make people feel happier?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...people-happier

Here, according to the CDC, religious people are less likely to get divorced. Do you think it's bad public policy to rely on beliefs that keep the nuclear family intact, which prevents all kinds of awful societal problems?

https://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divor...cs_by_Religion

Here, according to the right wing nuts at the Huffington Post, religious people commit less crime. Do you think it's bad public policy to rely on beliefs that result in less crime?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-ti...dy-f_b_4384046

"Hell Republicans and many others won’t vote for a catholic because they think they will have allegiance to the pope not the nation"

You're suggesting religious politicians have a hard time in the GOP? That's a new one.

Let me dumb this down for you

Would you support sharia law?

I doubt you would it’s laws based on the Koran some not much different then the 10 commandments

But I don’t what our laws based on the teachings of the Koran or the kings James bibles for the same reasons I do not was a judge to pass sentence based on his religious beliefs or based on the beliefs on the person being sentenced …

Faith from all religion has great benefits for many from the down trodden to the sick to those looking for a higher power for direction ..

But as usual you confused I suggest religion has no place in politics as somehow an attack on people of faith in politics

Religion has no place in policy ! People of faith are welcomed in politics And these 2 positions are not remotely the same . Except to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Let me dumb this down for you


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....this should be fun

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Let me dumb this down for you

Would you support sharia law?

I doubt you would it’s laws based on the Koran some not much different then the 10 commandments

But I don’t what our laws based on the teachings of the Koran or the kings James bibles for the same reasons I do not was a judge to pass sentence based on his religious beliefs or based on the beliefs on the person being sentenced …

Faith from all religion has great benefits for many from the down trodden to the sick to those looking for a higher power for direction ..

But as usual you confused I suggest religion has no place in politics as somehow an attack on people of faith in politics

Religion has no place in policy ! And these 2 positions are not remotely the same . Except to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“would you support sharia law.”

same logic ( lack there of) when you asked if i want mine fields to control immigration.

When liberals have lost the debate, they often respond not to what the conservative said, but to something that doesn’t come close to resembling the conservative ever said.

i never said i wants sharia law, that’s a moronic straw man extreme guy created, i don’t know who you’re responding to there, but i never hinted at sharia.

i pointed out reports, even in ultra left wing tags, that show positive benefits of judeo christian values, and since somehow you don’t seem
to already know this, judeo christian values are a little bit different than sharia law.

Try responding to what i’m actually saying, as opposed to some gibberish extreme that i never came close to saying.

All liberals do it. you all take from the same exact play book.

From where i sit, i can see an upside to public policy that has its roots in a value system which encourages generosity, charity, happiness, strong nuclear families, and more empathy for each other.

You think it would be “bad policy” to make decisions, influenced by values which behave those results?

You’re entitled to believe that.

Sharia law and mine fields. Yes, that’s what everyone knows i want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Let me dumb this down for you

Would you support sharia law?

I doubt you would it’s laws based on the Koran some not much different then the 10 commandments

But I don’t what our laws based on the teachings of the Koran or the kings James bibles for the same reasons I do not was a judge to pass sentence based on his religious beliefs or based on the beliefs on the person being sentenced …

Faith from all religion has great benefits for many from the down trodden to the sick to those looking for a higher power for direction ..

But as usual you confused I suggest religion has no place in politics as somehow an attack on people of faith in politics

Religion has no place in policy ! And these 2 positions are not remotely the same . Except to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“would you support sharia law.”

same logic ( lack there of) when you asked if i want mine fields to control immigration.

When liberals have lost the debate, they often respond not to what the conservative said, but to something that doesn’t come close to resembling the conservative ever said.

i never said i wants sharia law, that’s a moronic straw man extreme guy created, i don’t know who you’re responding to there, but i never hinted at sharia.

i pointed out reports, even in ultra left wing tags, that show positive benefits of judeo christian values, and since somehow you don’t seem
to already know this, judeo christian values are a little bit different than sharia law.

Try responding to what i’m actually saying, as opposed to some gibberish extreme that i never came close to saying.

All liberals do it. you all take from the same exact play book.

From where i sit, i can see an upside to public policy that has its roots in a value system which encourages generosity, charity, happiness, strong nuclear families, and more empathy for each other.

You think it would be “bad policy” to make decisions, influenced by values which behave those results?

You’re entitled to believe that.

Sharia law and mine fields. Yes, that’s what everyone knows i want.

Maybe you’re hearing the same
voices that Pete hears.

Wayne, when you can’t respond to what i said, and you have to pretend i said something stupidly different, doesn’t that tell you anything about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“would you support sharia law.”

same logic ( lack there of) when you asked if i want mine fields to control immigration.

When liberals have lost the debate, they often respond not to what the conservative said, but to something that doesn’t come close to resembling the conservative ever said.

i never said i wants sharia law, that’s a moronic straw man extreme guy created, i don’t know who you’re responding to there, but i never hinted at sharia.

i pointed out reports, even in ultra left wing tags, that show positive benefits of judeo christian values, and since somehow you don’t seem
to already know this, judeo christian values are a little bit different than sharia law.

Try responding to what i’m actually saying, as opposed to some gibberish extreme that i never came close to saying.

All liberals do it. you all take from the same exact play book.

From where i sit, i can see an upside to public policy that has its roots in a value system which encourages generosity, charity, happiness, strong nuclear families, and more empathy for each other.

You think it would be “bad policy” to make decisions, influenced by values which behave those results?

You’re entitled to believe that.

Sharia law and mine fields. Yes, that’s what everyone knows i want.

Maybe you’re hearing the same
voices that Pete hears.

Wayne, when you can’t respond to what i said, and you have to pretend i said something stupidly different, doesn’t that tell you anything about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim if you allow religious based politics and allow religion to dictate
Policies you get Shia law! No difference then using the King James Bible ( if you read the next sentence)

That’s is the extreme example but as if on cue you thought it was directed at you. Which it was not

I share many values that my religious friends share they may embrace them via church I embrace them because it’s the right thing to do we can hold shared values in America with out holding the same Book..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim if you allow religious based politics and allow religion to dictate
Policies you get Shia law! No difference then using the King James Bible ( if you read the next sentence)

That’s is the extreme example but as if on cue you thought it was directed at you. Which it was not

I share many values that my religious friends share they may embrace them via church I embrace them because it’s the right thing to do we can hold shared values in America with out holding the same Book..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re so wrong. you can make policy based on religious beliefs, without becoming a theocracy. those two things aren’t remotely the same thing.

all good politicians advocate for public policy based on what their conscience tells them is right. there are many ways of forming a conscience. people form consciences based on what their parents taught them, what they learned in school, what they hear in TV, what they read, even what they hear in church.

Our constitution says there is no official, state sanctioned religion. It doesn’t come close to saying we remove religion from public office, that’s settled case law. That doesn’t come close to meaning that a religiously-informed conscience isn’t compatible with democracy, while a conscience formed by what someone learned at school is compatible.

Consciences formed by religion have done incredible things throughout our history.

As i’ve shown ( as reported in the New York Times and The Huffington Post), religiously informed consciences can motivate people to do some really good, productive things.

I’m not saying we make divorce illegal because it violates catholic catechism - that would
be a theocracy as you correctly stated. No one is advocating for that. i’m saying we promote and advocate the benefits of strong families, of generosity, of having ACTUAL empathy for each other, and advocating for a culture that is designed to make people
feel good about themselves. That’s not what we have now. Especially not in our cities.

The anti segregationists like Rev Martin Luther King, Eisenhower, and Jack and Bobby Kennedy, had anti segregation positions that were influenced heavily by their faith. Are you saying it was therefore wrong to pass the anti segregation laws?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You’re so wrong. you can make policy based on religious beliefs, without becoming a theocracy. those two things aren’t remotely the same thing.

all good politicians advocate for public policy based on what their conscience tells them is right. there are many ways of forming a conscience. people form consciences based on what their parents taught them, what they learned in school, what they hear in TV, what they read, even what they hear in church.

Our constitution says there is no official, state sanctioned religion. It doesn’t come close to saying we remove religion from public office, that’s settled case law. That doesn’t come close to meaning that a religiously-informed conscience isn’t compatible with democracy, while a conscience formed by what someone learned at school is compatible.

Consciences formed by religion have done incredible things throughout our history.

As i’ve shown ( as reported in the New York Times and The Huffington Post), religiously informed consciences can motivate people to do some really good, productive things.

I’m not saying we make divorce illegal because it violates catholic catechism - that would
be a theocracy as you correctly stated. No one is advocating for that. i’m saying we promote and advocate the benefits of strong families, of generosity, of having ACTUAL empathy for each other, and advocating for a culture that is designed to make people
feel good about themselves. That’s not what we have now. Especially not in our cities.

The anti segregationists like Rev Martin Luther King, Eisenhower, and Jack and Bobby Kennedy, had anti segregation positions that were influenced heavily by their faith. Are you saying it was therefore wrong to pass the anti segregation laws?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what you written is how it should be

But states like Texas and others involving abortion . It’s all driven by the religious right .. all in the name of votes and Republicans seem to be the only party trying to overturn ROE. Aka religious right a very vocal but small minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

what you written is how it should be

But states like Texas and others involving abortion . It’s all driven by the religious right .. all in the name of votes and Republicans seem to be the only party trying to overturn ROE. Aka religious right a very vocal but small minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but it’s ok for a politician to say, “i think abortion should be illegal”, even if that opinion is formed by his faith. we don’t dismiss opinions that are influenced by faith. that’s not what separation of church and state means.

Show me a politician who is trying to make his whole religion the law of the land, and i’ll agree that’s a clear violation of church and state.

We don’t require anyone ( except judges i guess) including legislators, to leave their religion at home when they go to work.

sure it’s republicans predominantly who want to overturn Roe. but we aren’t all blindly following our religion. What I mean is, i’m catholic. If the pope said tomorrow that abortion is ok, i wouldn’t suddenly be pro choice. I’d find another religion that feels abortion is wrong, because the catholic church would no longer be the place for me.

I’m not anti abortion because i’m catholic. That’s kind of backwards. More correct to say that I’m catholic, because I’m anti abortion. my anti abortion stance led me to catholicism. does that make sense? I chose catholicism because it fits me, i didn’t change everything i previously believed once i became catholic. when catholicism says everything i hold dear is wrong, I’ll
leave. I don’t think my church is perfect ( i’m pro gay marriage for way longer than most democrats), good for me the catholic church allows dissent on that issue ( not on abortion).

i’m sure there are a small number of kooks who want a theocracy, but that’s nowhere close to what the overwhelming majority of the GOP wants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device