Congratulations, you took freedom away…

Hello Flash,

Flash said:
But, it was not based on any constitutional provisions. Science is not the source of our law.

Laws against abortion have nothing to do with religion. Abortion might be against the religious beliefs of anti-abortion people, but so are murder, theft, rape, assault, etc. But, it is not unconstitutional to prohibit those crimes because they are against both political and religious beliefs. The law itself must be aimed at religion to violate the establishment clause, the religious beliefs of the voters is irrelevant. You beliefs are 100% protected.
Click to expand...

So it's just coincidence that zealous Christians oppose abortion and did everything they could to take that option away from non-Christians?
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
A person's reasons for wanting to prohibit abortion have nothing to do with separation of church and state. The law itself would have to have some religious content to make it an establishment issue. A person's political beliefs can be based on anything he wants--even religion. That does not make the law religious.

If I favor abortion for religious reasons (God doesn't want unwanted children), does that make the law legalizing abortion a violation of the establishment clause?

A law can violate the establishment clause. A belief cannot.

Your religion might prohibit murder, but that does not make laws against murder only about religion, random, and arbitrary.
Click to expand...

How do you know what God wants? It is not possible to have a conversation with the mythical entity. Any perceptions of what God wants are guesses.

The very idea that a God exists is not established. I don't think there is one. I think it is all too convenient, and leaves too many unanswered questions. Why would such a powerful entity even bother creating an inferior life form? For amusement? There is no logical purpose for humanity or life to exist. It all just happened by chance.

Why is it that, despite sharing most DNA with other life forms, only humans are supposed to be included in religion and paying homage to this creator-overseer being?

If you had a dog that was a really good friend, and he died, will your dog also go to heaven and be waiting there for you? Despite the fact that the dog had no concept of religion and never prayed? All the dogs you ever owned? Would they get along? If one life form can get into heaven without recognizing the existence of God, then why worry about it? Why do humans alone have this obligation? Why not simply lead a good life and be good to others because it is logical? Why not simply work well with others because we are more effective as a society; instead of a bunch of loners all trying to rip everyone else off?

Were the advancements of the modern world created by anarchists or people working together?

Social order is logical. Anarchy is not.

Doing things for the good of society is logical. Being always selfish is not.

We do not need religion to have an advancing society. Science has shown that all the major parts of the Bible story of creation are BS. There is no God. And that's OK. We don't really need one. We have everything we need to create a fabulous life for humanity. Many wars have been fought over God. We should logically move beyond such antiquated beliefs.

God was most likely a construct to answer difficult questions asked by innocent children who grew up and repeated the lies they had been told. It is entirely understandable how all of religion followed convenient little lies told to quiet inquisitive young ones. All societies have their myths. It is not logical to cling to them in the face of a lack of actual supporting evidence.
 
Jarod said:
It’s actually the right to Privacy, which was much larger than abortion. It was the right to make basic personal decisions that most directly affect who we as individuals are.

The conservatives could easily have left that right alone and carved Abortion out of it. Instead these guys took it away giving the government the power to once again regulate access to birth control, who we can marry and any other number of personal decisions.

They took power away from individuals and gave it to the government.
Click to expand...

Obamacare opened this door, no more did we have a right to keep our doctors or insurance coverage. You brought this on yourselves
 
Earl said:
Stop sulking, it’s unattractive.
Click to expand...

Stop claiming a Zygote is a human being. Why do you advocate violence against those with whom you disagree? How many people do you want to murder to satisfy your bloodlust, Earl? Why have you betrayed your oath?
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
Shoresy favors mass murder of women who dare to protest the SCOTUS decision. He's KKK Alt-Right and bent on mass murder of all opposition to their ideology.



6l0iuo.jpg
Click to expand...

"Shoot someone on site?"

Didn't see that one. How do you shoot someone on a website?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,

"Shoot someone on site?"

Didn't see that one. How do you shoot someone on a website?
Click to expand...

He's advocating shooting them in the streets. Mass murder like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

43sg4t.gif


https://www.britannica.com/place/India/Anti-British-activity#ref47052
Soon after Dyer’s arrival, on the afternoon of April 13, 1919, some 10,000 or more unarmed men, women, and children gathered in Amritsar’s Jallianwala Bagh (bagh, “garden”; but before 1919 it had become a public square), despite a ban on public assemblies. It was a Sunday, and many neighbouring village peasants had also come to Amritsar to celebrate the spring Baisakhi festival. Dyer positioned his men at the sole, narrow passageway of the Bagh, which was otherwise entirely enclosed by the backs of abutted brick buildings. Giving no word of warning, he ordered 50 soldiers to fire into the gathering, and for 10 to 15 minutes about 1,650 rounds of ammunition were unloaded into the screaming, terrified crowd, some of whom were trampled by those desperately trying to escape. According to official estimates, nearly 400 civilians were killed, and another 1,200 were left wounded with no medical attention. Dyer, who argued his action was necessary to produce a “moral and widespread effect,” admitted that the firing would have continued had more ammunition been available.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top