Little Sisters of the Poor Aiding in the Religious Right Wing's Agenda for a Theocratic Government

So now,

you support a aneasthetized version of homicide.

Wonderful.

How, about the economic inequality induced homicide? Poor people are at fault for government injustices. They should not have children.

That is the reality you cater to.

Or the system of the Chinese where one child per family makes sense you know.

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Yet, I have worked alongside many an aetheist, who after having seen my "values", will defend my life, if someone were to unjustly attempt to take it.

Sounds to me, like it says more about them, than it does about you.

a reply to: Klassified

I see the aetheists values' and I don't care if he read Moby Dick... I'd do the same, because he and I consider each other brothers and equals.

Hows' that for size. Whose God does he worship now???

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

thanks, the guy you said that was kind of a weird one, Randell Terry. He was the founder of operation rescue, and has run for a few public offices although I don't think he ever won. He's so far off the wall that even operation rescue has distanced themselves from him.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I did, and if you actually even remotely think that is a possibility then you are naive at best. I am wagering you don't actually believe it is a possibility, and that you are just engaging in left vs right propaganda.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I did, and if you actually even remotely think that is a possibility then you are naive at best. I am wagering you don't actually believe it is a possibility, and that you are just engaging in left vs right propaganda.

I think you're missing the point. A subversive element doesn't have to take over to have an influence that works toward their agenda. Sure, they would rather take over from the inside, but they'll take what they can get, until they can get more.

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
a reply to: Klassified

I see the aetheists values' and I don't care if he read Moby Dick... I'd do the same, because he and I consider each other brothers and equals.

Hows' that for size. Whose God does he worship now???

None. You said he was an atheist.

Exactly,

My values catered to.... the ones of my invisibly imagined God.

Why are aetheists so threatened then? Because they are neutral perhaps?

They shouldn' t be (threatened) - especially if they see a true Christian - because the values that were exposed in our bible are the values of the people he can see (the aetheist), and figure out from their actions.

Every aetheist reads Moby Dick anyway! So pick according to the content of character - not the book they read!

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

In fact if the aetheist can convince more people to be true Christians as I see it, he'd be doing himself a favour, because it makes no difference to him.

And if I have great convincing arguments - all the more reason to twist it in the back of the "false" Christians.

So, sharpen my arguments, by fighting with me and convert everyone to Moby Dick (aka bible) fans.

a reply to: Klassified

Right, but focusing on a subversive element that has no chance of going anywhere is just political baiting.

Why not write up an article expressing your outrage with any number of left leaning groups who hold just as much power as the one mentioned in this thread, with extreme authoritarian communist points of view. Many of those individuals are in power today.

Ultimately this is a hit piece to paint the right in a bad light using a logical fallacy.

a reply to: raymundoko

well, let's see, the last time, they got far enough to declare a crusade against the middle east...

weather or not they could actually totally succeed is kind of doubtful really, but it is possible.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am wagering you don't actually believe it is a possibility

A full transition to theocracy may not happen, but religious tenets becoming law has been happening since the 1950s. There is more and more religious influence taking place in our government.

People are teaching creation in schools.
Science is thought of as "opinion" because it disagrees with religion.
Our currency says, "In God We Trust".
Discrimination against LGBT people is rampant (disguised as "Religious Freedom").
Abortion clinics are closing right and left.
Women's reproductive rights (contraception) are being attacked.

So, religious influence isn't something that's going to happen, it's HAPPENED, and they've only begun.

I don't believe in the common creation story and I'm Christian.... I'll have to dig up the evidence as to why I believe the creation story - I've discussed it's truth before.

Something to do with giving a palatable scientific explanation to Adam and eve and NOT being a story to indicate much historical evidence of the order in which that happened.

Why do I believe this? Because the creation and the next chapter disagree - potentially purposefully - in the exact chronological order of the events - which is what I consider many foolish Christians claim they've discovered.

In fact, the naming of animals, coincides with humans becoming thinking beings as God had decided they would be - and this coincides with the purpose of naming animals - language - communication between farmers - agricultural settlements - the casting from the "Garden of Eden" - apes leaving the jungle and becoming homo-sapiens.

The begining of the alienation of snakes on farms.

The growth of the human head - causing much more pain at child birth.

It is extremely accurate - it is bang-on.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Many times, Islamic terrorists will use the the widespread proverty within a country (proverty that the country does not make much of an effort to alleviate by the way) to gain support by filling the gap. they literal gain control thru their charity.
one has to wonder, why it is the right is also so hell bent on destroying the safety nets.
and well, they always bring up "charity" as the preferred substitute for them.

patent rights.....

It is the primary reason that we can think of a million options for not producing un-necessary waste and recycling "intelligently"....

China changed that with Tianammen square over-night.

But, they also legally restacked legal "fairness" and the historical ownership of wealth was instantaneously rewritten in law.

We accept that now and financially support them with unbelievable amounts of trade.

ATS is the death knell of the modern ridiculousness. And we only have to invent the Oxymoron to disable the world.

Re-enable the world with ridiculousness of choice.

"Sabotage" anybody?

a reply to: AboveBoard

The exemption form for religious institutions/employers is not a yellow star pinned to anyone's chest or a permission slip to practice said religion, or any other kind of victimization. The form is simply a means to EXERCISE their RELIGIOUS RIGHT to claim the exemption, just as special tax forms and non-profit forms are used for exemptions from taxes for churches - it is NO different!

Being Australian not clued up on the IRS, but surely they would have no problem signing an annual form that they are still entitled to Tax Free status, and all the benefits flowing from that. I know in Australia most bureaucracies need an annual declaration to continue getting a benefit/discount/exemption.


from Terminal1

Has anyone thought of the revenue stream catholic churches would lose if they were to offer contraception in the many orphanages they run? Something about what these nuns are doing doesn't sit right. Could there be a tie in?

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

you support a aneasthetized version of homicide.

Just like the death penalty, eh?

How, about the economic inequality induced homicide?

Starving people to death by manipulating the economy? And where, exactly, do you believe this is happening? North Korea?

That is the reality you cater to.

No, it's the fantasy of someone who thinks they deserve more than they have attained in life, and blame society and the state for their own unsatisfactory performance.

You seem to know a lot about atheists, for someone who can't even spell the word right.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So get this one:

A bunch of nuns who are supposed to be living a celibate life are now being required to buy insurance the covers contraception and, not just any contraception, but forms they feel are deeply offensive to their belief system.

And liberals turn this into a debate on the exception being about wanting to establish theocracy ...

Why do celibate nuns need to buy insurance that covers contraception? Let's stop the hyperbole. And why should they be forced into buying it?

Because that's how insurance works. It's all about risk pools. Those who won't need a product buy coverage to pay for those that will. If they only purchase that which is actually relevant to them, the health insurance industry collapses. That is why people get coverage on their policies that they don't need. You can't for example cover cancer treatment from only those who have cancer, because then everyone might as well just be paying individually.

The purpose of insurance is to pay more overall, for coverage against the chance of something catastrophic happening to you.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
So get this one:

A bunch of nuns who are supposed to be living a celibate life are now being required to buy insurance the covers contraception and, not just any contraception, but forms they feel are deeply offensive to their belief system.

And liberals turn this into a debate on the exception being about wanting to establish theocracy ...

Why do celibate nuns need to buy insurance that covers contraception? Let's stop the hyperbole. And why should they be forced into buying it?

Because that's how insurance works. It's all about risk pools. Those who won't need a product buy coverage to pay for those that will. If they only purchase that which is actually relevant to them, the health insurance industry collapses. That is why people get coverage on their policies that they don't need. You can't for example cover cancer treatment from only those who have cancer, because then everyone might as well just be paying individually.

The purpose of insurance is to pay more overall, for coverage against the chance of something catastrophic happening to you.

Partially right. One can reduce one's insurance cost (or could) by placing one's self in a lower risk pool and by requesting less coverage. A young person, who is very healthy, could get a very, very inexpensive policy by having only catastrophic coverage to cover that cancer or appendicitis or broken leg and paying for maintenance like birth control out of pocket.

When one mandates that all maintenance items are covered by everyone, cost for a large amount of people actually go up because they are then moved into a pool the didn't need to be in the first place.

Birth control or Viagra or several other things, by and large, are maintenance items not a catastrophic ones, so mandating their coverage does nothing to reduce the cost of a catastrophic event and does increase the cost to the overall consumer.

The more mandated coverage , the greater the cost.