Jump to content

Zealous Donkey

Members
  • Content Count

    1,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zealous Donkey

  1. This is a poker forum entitled Daniel's pokerblog which discusses a wide range of subjects almost all off topic. I am just curious, what did you expect to find? Plato and Aristotle? I agree with you though, it has been a lot better at times than it has been lately. I am a blackjack dealer who mainly argues against a lawyer(Caine) and two other guys with advanced degrees. LLY and Vb. I don't know as much about timwakefield. I guess he is a retired knuckle ball pitcher. I have a college degree but I have never taken a class in logic or philosophy(maybe I did take History of Philosophy) so
  2. Yes, I see what you mean, it doesn't make sense for it to be that way. I think religious people should be libertarians. It would be the best thing for them. The libertarians have a subset of anti-religious bigots which helps to keep this from happening. I know there are some good reasons to stand against religious organizations, you probably have some, though, you have kind of admitted that you have antipithy for all religion.
  3. I guess another point is how does a law against bigomy really stop this. There are already laws against Rape. Can a parent give permission for their underage child to have sex with someone older than 17? I would think this is already illegal, but maybe not.
  4. I mean couldn't you argue that porn has an overall negative efffect by degrading women and portraying them as sex objects. I think you are right, if a woman wants to put herself in these situations of her own free will, then that overrides how it effects women as a whole.
  5. Sounds like a good reason to make it illegal, I said earlier I am only for it if everyone is on board and of age.
  6. I want number one. But if that does not happen then #2. I have been arguing mainly in this thread about 2. Hopefully the courts will help with number 1. They will be challanging the individual mandate, that you can compel the folks to buy something they don't want to buy.An interview about upcoming court case. http://reason.tv/video/show/ilya-somin-on-why-the-individu
  7. Neither, I don't think government should be involved in sanctioning any marriages. If a guy has 6 women that agree of their own free will to "marry" him and all live together, then what is to stop them. I think that would be a disaster, but to each his own. Why do you want it to be illegal.
  8. It doesn't work, but there are lots of people who have mutiple sexual partners and father children with different women. So I guess they think it will work, I mean it is not like society or pop culture tells them there is anything wrong with it. Just as long as you don't commit to take care of any of these women or children society is all right with this kind of behavior.
  9. By fighting against infringement on religious liberties we are fighting for everyone's liberties. The Church doesn't want to force anyone to do anything, it is the government that is constantly doing that. We aren't fighting against contraception in this case, we are fight against infringements upon our freedom to practice our religion free of government interference. I will be fighting against the Health Care Law because it will greatly limit liberty.
  10. I am saying that the Religious Exemption to the Health Care Law violates the 1st Amendment Free Exercise clause by placing an undo burden on religious organizations. It gives them the ultimatum to violate their religious beliefs and bow down to the Govt. or be forced out of institutions that they have run for years. I think I have been fairly clear on this.
  11. Part of the reason it was so unpopular is because nobody knew what it was, but they passed it anyway under the cover of darkness.
  12. How do you explain that the worst schools in the nation are in places that have had democratic school boards and local governments for longer than 30 years. If they were really helping do you think the inner cities would look the way they do and the schools would be failing so badly. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293...c-thomas-sowell
  13. Just because it doesn't target(btw, I think the way it is being implemented by HHS is targeting religion) Religion doesn't mean you can force Religious groups out of civic society. That is one of the things protected by the 1st amendment. You can't say yes, you are allowed to practice your religion, wink, wink, just don't do it where anyone else can see it. What they are trying to do hear is confine religion to a building on Sunday and lock it there. That's not going to fly. We may be talking about different things. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is widely unpopular
  14. I remember seeing that, it also said that the Wall Street Journal is more left leaning in its news stories.(not its editiorial page) than The Times or the Post. Do you remember where you read that study. Was it on ReasonTV?
  15. According to your argument, since you are allowed to pass a law against virgin sacrifice, you are also allowed to pass any law limiting religious activity. I guess you also believe that since you can have a law against yelling fire in a crowded theatre you can also pass a law limiting all other kinds of free speech. Passing this law the way it was passed without knowing what was in it, when it was unpopular with a majority of the people certainly does warrant concern and for a lot more than just religious freedom.Edit, don't know what exactly happened, but only half my post posted. M
  16. By your reasoning you could do literally anything. So what if the people of this country through their representatives decided in the name of population control to kill all children born to families who already have a child. As long as it is applied equally you have no problem with this law on any other grounds. My problem is forcing people to conform to immoral laws. I has nothing to do with being equally applied, although Prsident obama did promise special conscious exemptions to religious organizations, so apparently he didn't have a problem with exeptions. He has given many other
  17. No, this law effects the free exercise of religion and for no good reason. Killing another human being would be a good reason to limit a religious practice. It would also be a good reason to limit the practice of abortion. I clearly stated that virgin sacrifice should be illegal because it involves the killing of another human being. Are you being serious? I have no idea why you think a law requiring virgin sacrifice shouldn't be passed even if the population is overwhelmingly opposed to such a law.
  18. I have already said yes, and I just used the length of time the Catholics have been exercising their mission as an example that they aren't trying to circumvent any laws out of convenience as other religions have tried. I never said it should be the only factor in determining anything, I simply stated it should be considered when trying to determine what constitutes exercise of religion. Again, I never said it should be the only thing considered. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of government? The founders did, that is why we have the bill of rights. The
  19. The Catholic Church is exercising its mission by providing food and clothing to the needy. They also run hospitals and schools throughout the world. The government gave these people a choice. The choice is ignore your religious convictions and basic beliefs and practices, or pay a large unaffordable fine. If they can do neither of these, then they will have to abandon these missions altogether. So yes, in effect the government is banning the Catholic Church(among others) from exercising it's mission of over a thousand years. Caine and Vb are saying the govt has the right to do this on th
  20. I Love the mocking and condescension from people who are comparing bigamy and virgin sacrifice with providing food and medicine for the poor.Yes, silly me, those are exactly the same thing.
  21. Note Vb definition of rights. Right to operate a business or school without violating personal deeply held religious beliefs is not considered a right.Contraception and abortion are absolute rights, not only are they allowed but payment for these rights is forced onto people who hold those things to be against their religious beliefs.and then he accuses the church of restricting peoples rights. This is a perfect example of religous bigotry.
  22. Yes, that is in effect exactly is what will happen and they know that. Will the Schools and Hospitals all close? no, but they will not have any religious affiliation. The key hit to the poor will be a lot of catholic charities which are extremely efficient in distribution of charitable donations and funding. He promised a "sensible conscience clause" but the exemption he offered is one in which the Catholic Church completely rejects. And not what he promised them on more than one occasion. " There is also a free exercise of religion. It is not limited to beliefs and opinions.
  23. So because the government can ban religious organizations from sacrificing virgins, they can also ban them from charitable work, running schools and hospitals. So what does the free exercise law cover exactly, the court won't consider long standing religious practices in determining this? Your position seems to be that free exercise means whatever the government wants it to mean. If this is true then the whole thing is meaningless.
  24. In effect what they are saying is that the Catholic Church can no longer run education institutions, hospitals, or charities, including food kitchens ect. They can only hang out in the Church. You know, I actually think the individual mandate may pass muster but this attack on religious freedom is what is going to be their downfall. And all he had to do was give a realistic exemption to religious organizations like he promised in his speech at Notre Dame. This is a huge power grab. The State wants a monopoly on heathcare, education, and charitable programs.
×
×
  • Create New...