Not really, as a deity coming forth to claim authorship for the bible would have been pretty newsworthy and would not have gone unnoticed.
It was newsworthy and it did happen. Its interesting that the seemingly invincible world power of Rome ended up joining forces with the religion they so adamantly persecuted. Of course, after the church joined with the state serious consequences occurred. That's why the people who started this country wanted to get away from it. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a person who was afraid that their state would not recognize their offshoot of Baptist beliefs. Jefferson said there had to be a fence protecting religion from the government; not visa versa.
Why did you put elected in quotes? If you're referring to President Obama, he was most definitely elected into office, without question. But that aside, all elected officials are accountable to the voters for reelection, at the very least. That the president isn't allowed more than two terms doesn't change that fact.
I don't remember saying he wasn't elected. He does, however seem to think he is king.
You mean like some people wanting to vote on whether or not certain Americans are entitled to the right to marry the person of their choice? I agree, that has created a problem...fortunately, one many state judiciaries have tried to correct.
I vote on whether they are legally allowed to be married, not on whether they have a right to be a homosexual. Its interesting to note that there is a difference, even in the Bible between civil law and moral law. Its not very different in our society. The moral law in Christianity says homosexuality is wrong. I will defend that continuously. But that's moral law. Determining whether it should be legal is civil law. Divorce is legal. Co-habitation is legal. No being a Christian is legal. What I would vote against is them being able to adopt children. But something tells me that won't be enough tolerance for many homsexuals. They want full marriage rights, which I would vote against.
How does having two loving parents, regardless of gender or marital status, infringe on a child's rights, exactly? I'll grant you that drug addicts might be unsuitable parents, assuming they are not recovering addicts. However, it should be noted that being a drug addict alone, recovering or otherwise does not cause you to lose your parental rights over your own children, adopted or otherwise.
Love is not just a feeling; its an action and an example of how to live. None of the examples I shared are examples of how to live. Sure that's my religious belief. Its also my right to vote regardless of whether you think its unconstitutional for me to vote different than you on gay marriage.
I'm talking about both quality and quantity, both of which point in the same direction.
I forget what we were talking about in this one.
The only time you're "forced" to go to the doctor is in an emergency situation, where your life may be in danger without treatment. Otherwise, no one's gonna force you to see your doctor.
As to taxation, that's a duty of citizenship.
Yes and no. It is a duty of a citizen to respect authority as long as it that authority isn't asking to do something they think is wrong. Example: its not wrong to pay taxes to the government just because they may go to fund abortion. What the government does with their own money is something they are accountable for, not the person who pays them. On the other hand, there is the policy set forth from the very beginning that there should be no taxation without representation. Also the higher you raise taxes, the less people may buy because it gets expensive after a while.
As for health care, from what I understand one has to pay a fine to opt out of Obamacare. Where I work they already met Obamacare's requirements.
To an extent....however, there are times when their decision affects others. Already,
certain diseases though to be wiped out are making a comeback, due to people choosing not to vaccinate.
I buy that. So quarantine them.
At some point, the public good has to be more important than the right to be an uninformed idiot.
Its still their choice to be an uninformed idiot. The way its supposed to work is: someone with an excellent education should not have more voting power than someone who either doesn't have or couldn't afford an excellent education. It prevents the educated from dominating the uneducated. Its protecting the little guy.
The idea, put forth by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, is that everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, and that those who don't have insurance are driving up the costs for those who do when they finally need healthcare. So the Heritage Foundation felt that everyone needed to have skin in the game, so to speak. By requiring everyone have some form of health insurance, it spreads the risk further (which is what insurance is all about) and makes it cheaper overall.
It actually makes it more expensive because now that everyone gets insurance, the hospitals, clinics, insurance companies, the medical product industries have to cover more people in an economy where employers of all kinds are forced to get more work done with less employees. If the economy wasn't so bad it would not be as big a deal.
The Heritage Foundation also suggested using private for-profit health insurance carriers to provide health insurance for everyone, because they felt relying on the private sector for healthcare was better than relying on the government to provide health insurance.
It is better. Unfortunately I don't think it will work due the reasons mentioned above.
And that's what we have now, a conservative, market-driven health care system.
Its government driven with hospitals, insurance companies, clinics and medical product companies now have to supply goods and services to more people.
If you don't like this plan, take it up with the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, who first proposed it back in the 1990s.
I would take up Obamacare with President Obama
Then it's in the best interest of society to ensure all citizens are educated, which is why we pay for schools with our tax dollars and require school for all children.
Another idea we liberals love!
Rebpblicans pay for schools with their tax dollars too. We aren't against paying taxes, you know.
No, we don't. I didn't seek a vote when I chose to get married, why should anyone else?
Because they aren't legally allowed to do it yet. My best advice for homosexuals, other than thinking about where they will spend eternity is to be patient and use the political process already set forth instead of penalizing churches for not agreeing with their lifestyle.
No, you're not. Not in the US, anyway, due to the Constitution. Do you know what "inalienable" means?
It may not be a crime, but it is unconstitutional. Check out the 14th Amendment some time.
This is another thing that distinguishes liberals from conservatives: liberals don't favor voting away the constitutional rights of entire segments of the public. We believe in equal protection under the law.
Its unconstitutional to tell someone how to vote. Government must make no law with respect to religion OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXCERCESE THEREOF. I am excercising my religion by not voting in support of homosexuals having full marriage rights.
Nope. It's based on the idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not through some deity.
And if the majority of the governed choose not to believe in a diety, its their right. But they cannot restrict the voting power of people who do believe in a diety.
Or, to put it another way:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
No mention of sin anywhere.
Actually I said checks and balances are based on the concept of sin.
Only if you don't wish to serve the public with your service. It's a reality some find hard to accept: people you don't like have the same rights you have.
Not quite yet. As said before I think homosexuals should be free from persecution. We are not Iran or Iraq or Syria or Russia. The human rights in Syria, for example are absolutely deplorable. We are a Republic. People have a right to live without being hunted down here unless they commit a serious crime. But since that republic was set up by Christians, the right of homosexuals to marry was not there. If you want it there, vote.
Sure. Religious organizations are well within their rights to practice according to their faith and not necessarily according to the law.
Yes and no. If the law is not asking them to do something against their religious beliefs they can and should obey that government. Its in the Bible.
However, private businesses open to the public are not free to deny services to entire segments of the public. The right to serve the public and be paid for your product or service carries the responsibility to actually serve the public, even "those kinds of people" you might not like.
Any social group not funded by the government can accept or deny membership to anyone. After all, college fraternities can kick out people who get bad grades or do not get along with other members in that fraternity. The lions club can get rid of people too. Its their right. This forum is a social group too. They can set their own rules and kick people out who cause trouble.
Then see my response to it.
OK
One individual's right to practice his or her religion does not include the right to allow or disallow others to live as they choose to. Liberals have fought for decades to uphold the right of all individuals to live as they see fit.
Actually it does if their religious beliefs are against people doing certain things.
Only to a point. It is unconstitutional to try and vote away civil rights for a certain segment of Americans. Many have tried, but they've found out over time that many brave Americans will stand strong against such tyranny.
It's a fight liberals have been, and continue to be, proud to undertake whenever they are called upon to.
As said above, its not unconstitutional to vote if the issue is on the ballot. No one can tell you how to vote. That's American politics 101
BTW, thank you for keeping the discussion civil. So far you have been a pleasant person to discuss with.
