Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people?
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,217 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
cptjeff
Nov 23 2004, 06:39 PM
You got it exactly right. I am personally opposed to abortions, but I belive that the decision is not mine. that is why it is pro choice, not anti-life. accually, I belive that I am -pro- life. I am jous opposed to pro-Control idealoigies. who in their right mind cannot claim to be pro life? you can claim to be anti-choice, or pro- rule, but you cannot say pro-life, because we all value life highly. however, veiws differ on wether or not a fetus is a life, and wether or not a mother's choice is more important.

Even the label 'Pro-Life' is not a nutral title. it makes it seem as if the pro-choice folks are anti- life. personally I belive in the pro- choice argument, not the pro-restriction one.

If you are Pro-life how can you stand ideally by and watch people make the “choice” to kill an innocent life, just because it cant defend its self?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
24thcenstfan
Nov 24 2004, 08:05 AM
^^Have you never heard of a "man-whore?" :P (From the movie Deuce Bigalow:  Male Gigolo.)



Cptjeff's spelling is so atrocious it takes a map, a compass and a guide to figure out what he is saying sometimes.  I am not picking on him, because he may have dyslexia for example. Several of our board members do.  I am just simply pointing out that it is difficult to discern what he says sometimes, and despite the “him” used, his wording caused me to hesitate in assigning meaning to the misspelled “hore” word.


:offtopic: and getting a bit sourcey.
Actually, a couple of wife's girlfriends - long standing family friends visited for dinner today - (know then from my elder boy's play-group days) , and they happened to mention male (w)hores - kind of in passing - one of these good ladies is undergoing a painful separation from her "toy boy" (that's another story) and it was suggested she hire a "rentahusband" - apparently they'll do the housework, or other more manly chores, or anything else you ask for , for a day (and night) , in the buff or just wearing a bow tie if that turns you on. Well so the story goes.

Well - I have found this for you rent-a-husband , it's a franchise.
As to what "services" they might provide - ? - not quite it's as extensive or "personal" as they think.

But the Japanese do actually have a male Geisa culture and industry that does "service" for the ladies (I guess rich and bored ones) for a fee.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita
Nov 24 2004, 04:24 AM
Personal Response

Minuet, what are you talking about?

The two quotes you pulled out of my last response were only made so you did not accuse me again of ignoring something.

They were made in response to comments from you that I couldn't see having anything whatsoever to do with anything I said. :shrug:

I'm going to say goodnight now.

End of Personal Response

Well I guess we have successfully confused each other :headscratch:













:wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
As an atheist, I completely agree with what the Doc is trying to say, religion by the fact that it makes up many peoples mind sets is going to influence the way these people govern, whether they are doing it maliciously or just because that is the way they think. All other groups (such as the atheist one I belong to, that tried to force its opinions about changing the pledge of allegiance) are in the same boat, to give a few groups a pass while stopping others from their right to have their own opinions heard is hypocrisful and/or cowardice.

Here let me through the idea for a loop. Say that I where president as an atheist I would bring zero religious notions to the table. But One of the things I would push for is the reversal of Roe vs Wade, whether that means and amendment to strike it down, or appoint justices that will over turn it. Now if our current president does this same thing, he is pushing his religion on people (shear evil), If I do it what is it called?

It's just inevitable and it wont change because it can't, the way people think is going to influence the way they govern. Religion is going to shape the way a religious man thinks and so the way he governs, Non-religion ideals are going to shape the way a non-religious man thinks and so governs. What can change is the way we look at each other and try to accept others for what they are, and not what they want them to be.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Nov 24 2004, 02:07 PM
Wichita
Nov 24 2004, 04:24 AM
Personal Response

Minuet, what are you talking about?

The two quotes you pulled out of my last response were only made so you did not accuse me again of ignoring something.   

They were made in response to comments from you that I couldn't see having anything whatsoever to do with anything I said.  :shrug:

I'm going to say goodnight now. 

End of Personal Response

Well I guess we have successfully confused each other :headscratch:













:wave2:

Personal Response

Then our work here is done ... :D

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Rose and Minuet,

LOL! Thanks for the entertainment. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

I was watching the Simpsons tonight, they had on the episode where Bart and Milhouse trash Neds Beatles Collection, there is one scene where the pair are later watching a religous program, as soon as the host said the word 'Jesus' , Bart and Milhouse scream and run out of the room.

I laughed out loud, but later I realised that it sums up this thread and most of my generation quite nicely.

A political leader can present his moral views and religous beliefs, but not in the same sentence.

Us non believers basically see believers as being brain washed, not operating on all faculties, ready to accept some doctrines that go against common sense, to us that is scary. Which is why religion should be separate from state
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Another reason why a politician, especially a US President, should not wear his religion on his sleeve is that a citizen should never have to question where his elected leaders' loyalties lay. Their job is to take care of the state. That should be their first priority.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Funny that they asked JFK if he took his orders from Vatican City.

Who cares, except for libs, if he has faith and isn't afraid to show it? In today's wussified, politically-correct, anything goes, secular society, that takes guts. A little faith never hurt anyone, and those who show fear and loathing of it have something to hide. To those who don't believe, but don't feel threatened by someone else's belief, they get it. To those who believe differently, but don't feel threatened, they get it.

This nation was, like it or not, founded on Christian principles. The first settlements here were founded by those seeking religious freedom, NOT freedom from religion. The president is not forcing his Methodist beliefs on anyone else.

I wonder if those who whine about President Bush's religious beliefs had any problem with John Kerry's brand of "Cafeteria Catholicism" or not?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Judge not Admiral, lest ye be judged. :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

He certainly has a judgement for all occasions. I have nothing against religious faith. I just think politicians should be careful to separate their faith from their political office. They were elected for a purpose and there should be no question where their priorities lay with respect to the job they were elected to perform.

| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Insult, no. Show people in their true light, yes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Nov 24 2004, 10:01 AM
Judge not Admiral, lest ye be judged. :P

I'm perfectly fine with that! :wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 24 2004, 11:25 AM
Insult, no. Show people in their true light, yes.

If that's how you feel about it.
| Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 24 2004, 10:59 AM
A little faith never hurt anyone

I take it that was supposed to be sarcastic :jawdrop:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus