Sharing the Wealth

[mikem12]

Pelosi and Reid said they were going to change all of these things. What happened. Those two would rather sit back and let the country go to hell in a hand basket and blame everyone else rather than do something constructive and turn it around. But then if they did something to stop the economic down slide, Barry Hussein (oops, sorry, we are not supposed to use that name) would have to look for other campaign personnel after his advisors were taken away due to the fact that the leaders and followers of Fannie & Freddie are mostly to blame for the mess. And it also means that there would have to be special elections to replace Barnie Franks and Chris Dodd for their involvement as well.

 

todate: I have heard nothing from the Libs chastizing Frank or Dodd. I guess it depends on which side of the political spectrum you swing to, however, I must say if these two were Reps. they would be drawn quartered and body parts sent to San Francisco for fine dining.

[suv_guy_19]

Others here have disdained those like me who use their sense of right/wrong (religious based) to sway public policy. I'll make a deal with you. I will agree to withold my morality on all things political, when you withold yours. This means no Federally-financed welfare, socialized medicine, or any other Federal policy intended to provide "social justice". If one man's morality has no place in Federal policy, then no man's does.

 

 

Your country was built on the foundation of separation of Church and State. The things you are asking others to withhold have nothing to do with religion, and you oppose them probably in part, because of your religions views.

[NickF1011]

I understand the opinion, but that's the easy answer.

 

Yes, it is an easy answer. I don't see why people try to make it more complicated.

 

Conception occurs due to the actions of two people of equal importance, no matter who carries to term. Both play a part; both bear responsibility; and both should have a say in the outcome. If not, then should the male also not have the freedom to choose and/or to support his (unwanted) child?

 

See? There you go trying to make it more complicated than it is. It's the woman's choice. Period. If she wants it, the guy better be ready to support it. If she doesn't, the guy's opinion be damned. Is that unfair? Of course it is. But as we all know, life isn't fair. Get over it.

 

however since morality cannot be based on anything other than belief in a higher power,

 

You lost me right about here. Morality and religion have nothing to do with one another. I see myself as a moral person, yet believe in no higher power.

Edited October 28, 2008 by NickF1011

[Deanh]

Yes, it is an easy answer. I don't see why people try to make it more complicated.

 

 

 

See? There you go trying to make it more complicated than it is. It's the woman's choice. Period. If she wants it, the guy better be ready to support it. If she doesn't, the guy's opinion be damned. Is that unfair? Of course it is. But as we all know, life isn't fair. Get over it.

 

 

 

You lost me right about here. Morality and religion have nothing to do with one another. I see myself as a moral person, yet believe in no higher power.

watchout Nick...a LOT of Church goers will start looking down their noses at you...HEATHEN!

[NickF1011]

watchout Nick...a LOT of Church goers will start looking down their noses at you...HEATHEN!

 

Let them. If they are the type who think the planet is only 6000 years old or whatever, they get nothing but laughs from me.

[BlackHorse]

Your country was built on the foundation of separation of Church and State. The things you are asking others to withhold have nothing to do with religion, and you oppose them probably in part, because of your religions views.

 

Let's not start trying to revise history SUV. The US was founded with a separation of Church and State not because they deemed religion bad, far from it. In our own Declaration of Independence it clearly states that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. They captilized Creator for a good reason and that is they believed in God. This country was founded as a place where people could be free of religous persecution. The kind of persecution they were subject to in Europe where the Chruch and State were one in the same. Our founding fathers believed, and rightly so, that a truely free people should be able to practice religon however they see fit and it should not be dictated by the state in accordance with the Church. That is the reason we have separation of Church and State. It is freedom of religon, not freedom from religon. To that end it also means that those who are athiest don't have the right to use the State as a conduit to impose their Godless values on the rest of us as they often try to do.

 

In point of fact Ranger is right. Many of the fedearlly financed programs we have that are intended to help the less fortunate are brought about based on our sense of morality as a culture. None of them are expressly authorized under the Constitution. Therefore he is correct. You can't argue that one person or groups moral compass is acceptable and another persons or groups is not when it comes to spending everyones tax dollars. Unless of course you're a socialist who's moral compass is so screwed up you have trouble finding the door.

Edited October 28, 2008 by BlackHorse

[RangerM]

Yes, it is an easy answer. I don't see why people try to make it more complicated.

 

See? There you go trying to make it more complicated than it is. It's the woman's choice. Period. If she wants it, the guy better be ready to support it. If she doesn't, the guy's opinion be damned. Is that unfair? Of course it is. But as we all know, life isn't fair. Get over it.

 

I have accepted that this is many persons' view. Is that the same as getting over it?

 

You lost me right about here. Morality and religion have nothing to do with one another. I see myself as a moral person, yet believe in no higher power.

 

It's not my intent to lose you. I didn't specify a particular religion or dogma. I said higher power. There is a difference, IMO.

 

Can we agree that morality is a code of conduct, or more to the point, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong?

 

I would ask, what is the source of (your) morality? I am not trying to argue as to the existence of a diety. I am merely asking how did you determine that you are a moral person? Was the line between right and wrong drawn by you or someone else? Is the line movable or is it static?

 

If drawn by you, then I would submit this is nothing more than your personal scruples, and by that definition morality is a relative term and is completely fluid. If morality is relative, how would this not dilute the meaning?

 

If drawn by someone else, then I would say you have already submitted yourself (your self-power if you will) to a higher power.

[RangerM]

watchout Nick...a LOT of Church goers will start looking down their noses at you...HEATHEN!

 

THIS church-goer does not.

[NickF1011]

I have accepted that this is many persons' view. Is that the same as getting over it?

 

I suppose.

 

It's not my intent to lose you. I didn't specify a particular religion or dogma. I said higher power. There is a difference, IMO.

 

Can we agree that morality is a code of conduct, or more to the point, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong?

 

I would ask, what is the source of (your) morality? I am not trying to argue as to the existence of a diety. I am merely asking how did you determine that you are a moral person? Was the line between right and wrong drawn by you or someone else? Is the line movable or is it static?

 

If drawn by you, then I would submit this is nothing more than your personal scruples, and by that definition morality is a relative term and is completely fluid. If morality is relative, how would this not dilute the meaning?

 

If drawn by someone else, then I would say you have already submitted yourself (your self-power if you will) to a higher power.

 

I just don't see this "higher power" thing. A code of conduct laid forth by the society in which I live. If they gained that code of conduct through religion, that's all fine and dandy. Obviously they didn't though. There are plenty of things that are now considered to be "moral" to mainstream society that are not endorsed by most religions. So, obviously it is a fluid and ever-changing line. What is "moral" now may not have been 50 years ago. That's not really my concern though. I guess I would just consider it living by the ever-popular Golden Rule. I try treat other people like I'd like to be treated. That's just common sense to me, not some "higher power".

[fordxer]

todate: I have heard nothing from the Libs chastizing Frank or Dodd. I guess it depends on which side of the political spectrum you swing to, however, I must say if these two were Reps. they would be drawn quartered and body parts sent to San Francisco for fine dining.

 

You got that right

[Deanh]

THIS church-goer does not.

that I commend and you have my respect sir.....

[Deanh]

I suppose.

 

 

 

I just don't see this "higher power" thing. A code of conduct laid forth by the society in which I live. If they gained that code of conduct through religion, that's all fine and dandy. Obviously they didn't though. There are plenty of things that are now considered to be "moral" to mainstream society that are not endorsed by most religions. So, obviously it is a fluid and ever-changing line. What is "moral" now may not have been 50 years ago. That's not really my concern though. I guess I would just consider it living by the ever-popular Golden Rule. I try treat other people like I'd like to be treated. That's just common sense to me, not some "higher power".

we are knit from the same cloth it seems Nick....I guess the "religious version" is "Do unto others....."

[RangerM]

Your country was built on the foundation of separation of Church and State. The things you are asking others to withhold have nothing to do with religion, and you oppose them probably in part, because of your religions views.

 

You have drawn a conclusion based on your personal bias.

 

I am merely asking that if others wish to impress their values on me, why prevent me from using my values to influence them and public policy?

 

I am absolutely NOT in favor of making the U.S. a Christian Theocracy, although I believe the "separation of Church and State" has been taken beyond the furthest extreme intended by the Founding Fathers. We are to the point that we fear religion (although I acknowledge that certain zealots do nothing to temper this feeling)

 

I AM in favor of allowing States to determine their laws, and if California wants to impose policies based on a certain set of moral values, I am completely in favor of it. If North Carolina does not want the same policies, then is should be so.

 

The Federal Government is being used to coerce certain States to adopt policies that aren't favored by the individual State's people. Why not let the States decide?

[fordxer]

I suppose.

 

 

 

I just don't see this "higher power" thing. A code of conduct laid forth by the society in which I live. If they gained that code of conduct through religion, that's all fine and dandy. Obviously they didn't though. There are plenty of things that are now considered to be "moral" to mainstream society that are not endorsed by most religions. So, obviously it is a fluid and ever-changing line. What is "moral" now may not have been 50 years ago. That's not really my concern though. I guess I would just consider it living by the ever-popular Golden Rule. I try treat other people like I'd like to be treated. That's just common sense to me, not some "higher power".

It sounds to me as though you are confusing "considered to be "moral" to mainstream society" with "ACCEPTABLE to mainstream society". IMO, they are two different things. They way I see it today is that "mainstream society" is just shy of moral. I see it as the FEEL GOOD society. In other words, I will do what feels good today and suffer the consequences later.

[napfirst]

Yes, it is an easy answer. I don't see why people try to make it more complicated.

 

 

 

See? There you go trying to make it more complicated than it is. It's the woman's choice. Period. If she wants it, the guy better be ready to support it. If she doesn't, the guy's opinion be damned. Is that unfair? Of course it is. But as we all know, life isn't fair. Get over it.

 

 

 

You lost me right about here. Morality and religion have nothing to do with one another. I see myself as a moral person, yet believe in no higher power.

Let me ask you a question; if you consider yourself moral, from where are these moral values derived?

[RangerM]

I suppose.

 

 

 

I just don't see this "higher power" thing. A code of conduct laid forth by the society in which I live.

 

"Society" is the higher power. You have submitted yourself to a society-accepted code of conduct.

 

If they gained that code of conduct through religion, that's all fine and dandy. Obviously they didn't though. There are plenty of things that are now considered to be "moral" to mainstream society that are not endorsed by most religions. So, obviously it is a fluid and ever-changing line. What is "moral" now may not have been 50 years ago. That's not really my concern though.

 

When morals are fluid, this should scare you. Obviously there are extremes. We don't burn witches anymore, but the exercise of religion is often fraught with error. Many persons associate the actions of a self-proclaimed religious person, with the religion itself. And while there is some basis for this line of thinking, I would only ask that we consider the difference between the messenger and the message.

 

I guess I would just consider it living by the ever-popular Golden Rule. I try treat other people like I'd like to be treated. That's just common sense to me, not some "higher power".

 

In a secular society, and even in a religious one, this is completely rational.

 

It is notable there are variations of the Golden Rule in many religions, so maybe religion itself isn't so bad.

[NickF1011]

It sounds to me as though you are confusing "considered to be "moral" to mainstream society" with "ACCEPTABLE to mainstream society". IMO, they are two different things. They way I see it today is that "mainstream society" is just shy of moral. I see it as the FEEL GOOD society. In other words, I will do what feels good today and suffer the consequences later.

 

No, I do what is considered moral by most standards, not what is just acceptable. I actually go out of my way sometimes to help others. Those just trying to be acceptable to mainstream society usually just do whatever they can to not be noticed. Sure, there are probably a couple things I do that some may not consider moral, but eh, up their nose with a rubber hose I say. And yes, I live a "feel good" lifestyle. Of course, what makes me feel good the most is making those around me feel good also. What's the point of feeling good about yourself if everyone else around you is miserable?

[Deanh]

Let me ask you a question; if you consider yourself moral, from where are these moral values derived?

common sense and parental guidance would be my personal answer to that

[NickF1011]

"Society" is the higher power. You have submitted yourself to a society-accepted code of conduct.

 

As I clarified later, it's not necessarily what society specifically wants, it's basically acting how I would like society to treat me. I won't kill my neighbor, I would expect my neighbor not to kill me. Generally, that is the code of morals society lives by, whether guided by religion or not. It's just the common sense way to do things.

 

When morals are fluid, this should scare you. Obviously there are extremes. We don't burn witches anymore, but the exercise of religion is often fraught with error. Many persons associate the actions of a self-proclaimed religious person, with the religion itself. And while there is some basis for this line of thinking, I would only ask that we consider the difference between the messenger and the message.

 

Fluid morals shouldn't scare anyone. We are an evolving people. As we evolve, our morals will also. I wouldn't expect my children to live by the exact same moral code as I do.

 

In a secular society, and even in a religious one, this is completely rational.

 

It is notable there are variations of the Golden Rule in many religions, so maybe religion itself isn't so bad.

 

I never said there was anything wrong with religion itself. Taken at face value, if people lived by the general moral code put forth by most religions, then the world would probably be a better place. It's only when people use religion to usurp power or influence society for selfish needs that it becomes a problem. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a very difficult thing to do, as history has shown it to happen repeatedly.

Edited October 28, 2008 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

As I clarified later, it's not necessarily what society specifically wants, it's basically acting how I would like society to treat me. I won't kill my neighbor, I would expect my neighbor not to kill me. Generally, that is the code of morals society lives by, whether guided by religion or not. It's just the common sense way to do things.

 

Fluid morals shouldn't scare anyone. We are an evolving people. As we evolve, our morals will also. I wouldn't expect my children to live by the exact same moral code as I do.

 

When society's morals are codified, how is it that they are fluid at the same time? I understand the concept of evolving tastes and attitudes, but there are basic principles that are not evolving, and serve as the basis upon which society builds itself.

 

There is a reason for having a Constitution. It provides the stable bedrock for our country. (It is essentially a dead document, with the obvious exception of the Amendment process)

 

I never said there was anything wrong with religion itself. Taken at face value, if people lived by the general moral code put forth by most religions, then the world would probably be a better place. It's only when people use religion to usurp power or influence society for selfish needs that it becomes a problem. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a very difficult thing to do, as history has shown it to happen repeatedly.

 

I can understand your feelings on that, and I lament that religion is misused as a conduit for self-promotion or the promotion of a morally-detestable policy. All I can do is live my life, according to my beliefs, preferably in freedom. All I ask is that if I and others like me choose to do this in a particular State, while allowing any dissenter to voice an opinion or freely leave the State, what is the problem with that?

[RangerM]

-deleted for space-

 

Thank you, BH for eloquently expressing that which I could not.

[Deanh]

When society's morals are codified, how is it that they are fluid at the same time? I understand the concept of evolving tastes and attitudes, but there are basic principles that are not evolving, and serve as the basis upon which society builds itself.

 

There is a reason for having a Constitution. It provides the stable bedrock for our country. (It is essentially a dead document, with the obvious exception of the Amendment process)

 

 

 

I can understand your feelings on that, and I lament that religion is misused as a conduit for self-promotion or the promotion of a morally-detestable policy. All I can do is live my life, according to my beliefs, preferably in freedom. All I ask is that if I and others like me choose to do this in a particular State, while allowing any dissenter to voice an opinion or freely leave the State, what is the problem with that?

you sir are an anomoly amoungst those I have been associated with considered "religious". I have been aquainted by avid Catholics, current girlfiend is full blown irish prodestant, and my ex wifes family were the worst of the worst ...Mormon. One constant ( aside from my current better half whom is one of the most open armed, "warm and fuzzy" outlook on life people....may be to do with 2 open heart surgerys, you will ever meet ) was a judgemental oulook on those that did not follow THEIR beleifs. I found it absolutely ludicrous that factions that apparently "worship" the same guy, could hate each other to the extent they do; ( hell look at Ireland for goodness sake ) judge anothers beleif, criticize....and worst case scenario, declare war on someone whos opinions differ....idiocy in my eyes...in my eyes these "Holy wars" are the pinnacle of hypocrisy....thank the big guy there are still those like yourself and my current....like anything though...the few burden it for the rest....shame really

[NickF1011]

When society's morals are codified, how is it that they are fluid at the same time? I understand the concept of evolving tastes and attitudes, but there are basic principles that are not evolving, and serve as the basis upon which society builds itself.

 

There is a reason for having a Constitution. It provides the stable bedrock for our country. (It is essentially a dead document, with the obvious exception of the Amendment process)

 

Codes are meant to be changed. Even the Constitution was meant to be changed, hence why it was made amendable. Our forefathers knew that the role of government and the code by which society would want to live would change with time. That's why those checks were put into the document. Better slow change than no change at all until the only recourse is revolution.

 

 

I can understand your feelings on that, and I lament that religion is misused as a conduit for self-promotion or the promotion of a morally-detestable policy. All I can do is live my life, according to my beliefs, preferably in freedom. All I ask is that if I and others like me choose to do this in a particular State, while allowing any dissenter to voice an opinion or freely leave the State, what is the problem with that?

 

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who wishes to practice his/her religion in any way they want. Just so long as they are not infringing upon my own rights in the process. I have no problem with organized religion or with those who practice it. I just don't want to be a part of it myself, or looked down upon because I choose not to involve myself with it.

[Deanh]

Codes are meant to be changed. Even the Constitution was meant to be changed, hence why it was made amendable. Our forefathers knew that the role of government and the code by which society would want to live would change with time. That's why those checks were put into the document. Better slow change than no change at all until the only recourse is revolution.

 

 

 

 

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who wishes to practice his/her religion in any way they want. Just so long as they are not infringing upon my own rights in the process. I have no problem with organized religion or with those who practice it. I just don't want to be a part of it myself, or looked down upon because I choose not to involve myself with it.

absolute +1 there.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Well $hiiittt, I missed the gun giveaway on the corner? Well The Lord giveth and the Obama taketh away

 

I guess Obama is the anti-Christ then.