It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

page: 23
53
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
yes. if you are single and work 40 hrs, you should make enough to rent an apartment, buy food, and pay for a used car. the nature of your job is irrelevant. work is work. knowing how to assemble a burger is no different than assembling a car, except for the power tools. another example, why do you pay your yard guy far more then your neighbors kid to cut your lawn? same job, but you think you can rip the neighbors kid off.


What planet do you live on, its not earth....

A job pays what it is worth, and that worth is based on the skills needed to do the job, and what the job provides the company. If I can train you in a day to do the job then it will be low paying most likely, if it takes years to learn it then it will pay more.

As I said, it seems the other 99% of the world looks at a living wage as what the family brings in, so not solo wage. You assume every company is some big bad monster and about 70% plus people in America work for a small business that have very narrow profit margins. I would love to see you open a small coffee stand and pay your workers 20 bucks and hour...please try...





edit on 8-7-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Where does the STATE get the money? It takes it out of people's pockets. The state does not produce the money itself. It steals.


sigh.

NO. THE STATE IMPOSES "TAXES".

*slaps forehead*

I pay my taxes: income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, ad nauseum. You pay your taxes, too!! And some of it goes to food stamps and housing costs for those who are NOT EARNING ENOUGH while WORKING to sustain themselves!!! And Walmart and McD (your 'wall street' players of earlier reference) take advantage of that!!

WE are who pays for it.... in TAXES.

but---
YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALISM. You don't want companies to pull their own weight - to ensure their employees don't NEED TO rely on "socialism" (your taxes!)...No. You're fine with them paying crap wages and your own TAXES being used to subsidize THOSE CORPORATIONS!!

Seriously?

TAXES are SOCIALISM. TAXES are what keeps your roads, sewers, electricity, schools, and other imperative infrastructure. WHY should taxes be used to help burger-flippers be able to survive??? BECAUSE BIG MONEY CORPS refuse to PAY THEM a living wage.

Gha.

Again - I'm done. Nothing more to say to you.
I'm out, all -
have a good night!
edit on 7/8/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: manna2


At trial, McKinney offered various rationales to justify his actions. He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.



During the trial, Kristen Price, McKinney's girlfriend, testified that Henderson and McKinney had "pretended they were gay to get [Shepard] in the truck and rob him".


This ain't no lover's quarrel. Two straight men pretended to be gay in order to rob him, but instead

McKinney and Henderson subsequently drove the car to a remote, rural area, and proceeded to rob, pistol-whip, and torture Shepard, tie him to a fence, and leave him to die

i have no idea where you got that assumption, but it's purely ignorant on your half.


source



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I apologise for playing the victim card. I'll keep your thoughts in mind if i ever find myself getting pounded on by a bunch of 'Good Christians fixing a problem'. Suffice to say one of my abusers was a Navy man...



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I never saw Christ advocate for the government to force redistribution of wealth nor did he advocate a person taking from one person to give to another.


Socialism doesn't redistribute wealth, it eliminates it. Money is rendered useless, so nothing is being taken from you and given to someone else. No contradiction there.


He advocated individual giving and voluntary charity, both at odds with socialism and communism.


Socialism doesn't eliminate individual giving and voluntary charity, it just insures that those things aren't necessary for survival. Not everyone can do for themselves. So again, no contradiction.

And besides all that, socialism in one form or another is inevitable. That is unless you're willing to stop the advancement of technology and efficiency right now. How do you plan to deal with machines putting us all out of work? Will you say to the auto manufacturers, stop building robots because Billy needs to earn a living? Will you say to Google, stop developing self driving vehicles because cab drivers and truck drivers need to make a living? That time is fast approaching you know.

We need to adopt a system that benefits from eliminating jobs, rather than creating them.




those cab drivers and auto workers can go and paint pictures or make music.

it is a dilemma, when you start eliminating min wage jobs and bluecollar worker jobs with robotics.

where are they gonna go?

just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

end up with the eloi and morlocks.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: gentledissident

You've obviously bought wholesale their rather carefully crafted construction on reality, cosmology etc.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
end up with the eloi and morlocks.


That works. So every now and then some Blue Collar worker drags some wealthy business owner down on to the factory floor and they all eat him.

What's the problem with that???





posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: gentledissident

You've obviously bought wholesale their rather carefully crafted construction on reality, cosmology etc.
By "their", whom do you mean? These are my logical conclusions from traveling and talking to hundreds of people. I don't see my points of view espoused in the media, like the antenna TV my Gf has on in the morning or NPR. I have been accused of parroting Dawkins, but I've never paid attention to him or any other famous atheists. I do my own real word research and form my own conclusions. I'm also told that I sound like Chomsky, but I've never read him either. My media intake is mostly arts and crafts.

The Christian Bible is fun for Dungeons and Dragons campaigns, but it's a disgusting window on humanity. Just don't hurt anyone, try to help as much as you are able, and have a good time. Don't get caught up in the mind tricks left over from chauvinistic control freaks who perpetuate religions. Your life will be more pleasant than with the neurosis of religion. You just have to acknowledge your mind's willingness to celebrate meaningful coincidence as proof of an afterlife. We are a unique species that can contemplate its own death. This strikes fear in many. This then opens an avenue of control for a relative few. Those are the people trying to control your life.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: tsingtao
end up with the eloi and morlocks.


That works. So every now and then some Blue Collar worker drags some wealthy business owner down on to the factory floor and they all eat him.

What's the problem with that???



I might have to temporarily give up being a vegetarian for that.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The citizens united ruling and the recent hobby lobby ruling among others rulings by the supreme court add validity to what the op is asserting.

But has anyone here looked up the groups behind the politicians? What do these groups say?

The first group of Christian fundamentalist (that I remember) attempting to influence/control government was the "moral majority"


Moral Majority, U.S. political action group composed of conservative, fundamentalist Christians. Founded (1979) and led (1979–87) by evangelist Rev. Jerry Falwell, the group played a significant role in the 1980 elections through its strong support of conservative candidates. It lobbied for prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools, while opposing the Equal Rights Amendment (see feminism), homosexual rights, abortion, and the U.S.-Soviet SALT treaties (see disarmament, nuclear). The Moral Majority was dissolved in 1989.

infoplease

We have the right to free speech and assembly, so imo what there doing isn't wrong.

And the next group to come along was:
Christian Coalition of America


Our Mission:
Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress
Speak out in the public arena and in the media
Train leaders for effective social and political action
Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation
Protest anti-Christian bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith
Effective citizenship begins with knowledge. Since its inception, the Christian Coalition has worked to provide critical education and political training to the pro-family community in order to challenge and equip individuals and churches to make a difference at all levels of government.


They also say this:


Today, Christians need to play an active role in government again like never before. If we are going to be able to change policy and influence decisions, it is imperative that people of faith become committed to doing what Ronald Reagan called "the hard work of freedom". We are driven by the belief that people of faith have a right and a responsibility to be involved in the world around them. That involvement includes community, social and political action.

CC.com

They are clearly stating they wish a more theocratic form of governance based on fundamental Christianity.

Oh and lets remember the group the tea parties looked to during the government shutdown:

Focus on the Family

They wanted this groups blessing before preceding on voting yes or no to end the government shutdown.

Just wait till your employer is Islamic or a Scientologists, or Mormon and they are able to instill there religious beliefs on you.
edit on 8-7-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Hmmm.

What laws have been passed by Congress and signed by the President that establishes any Religion ?

All we see are laws that violate freedom of religion being struck down.

It's not the stone's size that matters, it's who throws the first stone that matters.




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

Hmmm.

What laws have been passed by Congress and signed by the President that establishes any Religion ?

All we see are laws that violate freedom of religion being struck down.

It's not the stone's size that matters, it's who throws the first stone that matters.



Can you show what laws your talking about? That violate freedom of religion?

Or is that just a talking point? Or maybe your referring to the gay marriage bans being declared unconstitutional?

Btw I can't buy booze on Sunday because there is a religious law that outlaws the sale of alcohol on Sunday in the state I live in, so I must conform and obey this religious law or be fined, jailed or imprisoned if I disobey.
edit on 8-7-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Do you believe in absolute truths? If not i will have a short debate on it. Very short.a reply to: Chiftel



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

some examples and cases here..........

Freedom of Religion and the Establishment Clause


And of course, we saw the Hobby Lobby case. The SCOTUS ruling shows the ACA had violated some religious freedoms.




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The SCOTUS ruling shows the ACA had violated some religious freedoms.



No it didn't.

The ruling granted Hobby Lobby religious exemption........as a "for profit corporation"...............for the first time ever in the history of the United States of America!

The ACA has always allowed for religious exemption.






edit on 8-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

Hmmm.

What laws have been passed by Congress and signed by the President that establishes any Religion ?

All we see are laws that violate freedom of religion being struck down.

It's not the stone's size that matters, it's who throws the first stone that matters.



Can you show what laws your talking about? That violate freedom of religion?

Or is that just a talking point? Or maybe your referring to the gay marriage bans being declared unconstitutional?

Btw I can't buy booze on Sunday because there is a religious law that outlaws the sale of alcohol on Sunday in the state I live in, so I must conform and obey this religious law or be fined, jailed or imprisoned if I disobey.


why would you be jailed, fined or imprisoned?

do you sell booze?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

depends on interpretation.

first paragraph...


The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of theburden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).At issue here are regulations.................

The Case of all Cases




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hobby Lobby, et al, didn't have the legal status of "religious" person before the court ruled. The court didn't rule the contraceptive mandate was unconstitutional. It ruled that Hobby Lobby, et al, could claim religious exemption.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”


How do you interpret it?

The way I see it, this law says the government CAN substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion as long as they have a compelling interest.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

You need to go back to the original court filing from Sept 12, 2012.

The complaint cites religious convictions and the mandate that forces them to violate their freedom of religion.

Clear as a bell.

Starts on page 8 (pdf) and continues.

includes some precedent along with some other government infringements.

Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join