I’ve already told you: according to the priests I encountered as a kid, Jesus.
I kinda doubt that. If it makes you feel better, I’m a leftist fuckhead that doesn’t think prohibiting abortion would establish a theocracy. It would create a culture in which women are forced to bear children against their will so a bunch of superstitious thugs can tell themselves they’re in with a mythical being, though.
I don’t apply Church teachings, haphazardly or otherwise. I belong to no church, and base my political decisions on desired and predicted results.
What if I contend that by growing our economy we will ultimately continue to raise the standard of living for everyone, just as the standard of living for even our poorest now is still dramatically better than it was for our poorest in 1917?
I am, in other words, thinking of the children, but not myopically focused on short term fixes like you are. What if I believe that your short term fixes are actually worse for the outcome of the most people over the most time?
Is it possible that as a kid, you misunderstood the precise nature of what they we telling you? Or maybe those priests were talking about other people, not me, specifically? Did they know me?
Then we agree. No religious guidance is relevant to establish social policy. Why are you urging me to violate that wise guidance? Because you thought it would help you get what you want?
Who are a fringe of a fringe. The reality is that I have seen what happens when all abortions are banned. Even the health of the mother is disregarded many times.
They’re using the Humpty-Dumpty Rule, which allows them to assign any meaning to any word. This is how, for example, “empty barrel,” becomes racist. It’s a liberal rule. You can invoke once you get six tapeworms.
See, this is an example of why your religion is relevant, and yet, not, at the same time.
If you make a claim to follow a religion, then that means that you folow it’s rules, it’s guidance, ti’s princples. If you do not follow those, then you are a hypocri that is abusing religion for your own personal gain. Virtue signalling to others that you follow a code of morals, while not actually doing so.
Now, the part that secularists like ourselves reject is when your religion tells us how to live our lives.
That’s great that you guys have a rule about sex and marriage and birth control and all that, and if you want to follow that, great, good on you for following your churches teachings. It is only when you want to foist your rules upon those who do not believe in you theology that there is pushback on your beliefs.
We are not picking and choosing, we are being consistent, and simply waiting for you to be as well. We secularists have plenty of reason to favor children’s health over tax cuts for the wealthy, and even though I would think that the secularist side of you should agree with that, the religious side that you claim to follow should make that more clear.
So, don’t apply them piecemeal. Apply them wholly to your life. Apply them wholly to your actions, and the way that you interact with others. Follow the teachings of the man you claim to hold in high regard.
But, yeah, don’t apply them to others who do not share your opinion on god. You are the only one to be judged, because it is a standard that you have chosen for yourself to be judged by. To then complain that you are judged by the standard that you chose to be judged by is not “cherry-pick[ing] guidance when it suits you and screech[ing] like frightened geese”, it is asking you to practice what you preach.
And it is perfectly possible to imagine a secular, atheistic affirmation of the need to protect human life as an infant, a toddler, a child, even as a teen. And what is more, it would also be in line with the teaching of your church. I kinda get when secular and religious principles are seemingly at odds, and you have to choose one or the other, but this satisfies both practical and pragmatic principles of maintaining a healthy population that can be educated, enter the work force, and contribute to the economy, and follow in Jesus’s teachings to love your neighbor. You should be thrilled at such a no-brainer. The church and the state, both agreeing on something.
Actually, it is a policy that you don’t want, so you attempted to sweep it away as simply a liberal fantasy, the you tried to make the case that it was unconstitutional, when you realized that was a pointless line of argument, you tried to distract with a complaint that judges are called for in the constitution. When you realized that wasn’t working, well, here we are, not talking about the congress critters who are cutting health care for poor children in order to offer a tax cut to the wealthy. You cannot defend them directly, so this is your defense. Distraction.
Sadly, (for you) it doesn’t really work. Your distraction cannot keep people from reading the OP, where the problem is laid out, and your distraction cannot prevent people from continuing to discuss this and other actions that the party of “family values” does that harm those families. It just gives everyone chance to pick on you, and not feel bad about it in the slightest, because you come into the pit and threadshit (which is fine for the pit, I’m not judging), and so there you are, trying to pretend that there isn’t shit oozing down your inner thigh, and daring anyone to challenge you.
I don’t mind. It gives a chance for me to point out in depth and in detail your many levels of hypocrisy. Your many levels of dishonest rhetoric. Your continued attempts at painting liberals as hypocrites because they don’t all march in lockstep, when you don’t even follow the principles your yourself claim to believe. These conversations also give any readers more ammunition against those of your ilk, gish galloping about with your distractions and lies. People are often confused and confounded by someone making all the false claims that you have made in such a short period of time, and are not sure how to respond. By acting as a foil, you give people practice for when they get in these conversations elsewhere on the 'net, or even with acquaintances, friends or family.
I’ll take their expertise in scripture over yours. I didn’t ask if they knew you personally, sorry.
No, we don’t agree. We aren’t talking about the basis for establishing social policy, we’re talking about your hypocrisy for not supporting that policy. The basis for establishing that policy exists independent of you, me, or our opinions.
I had two cousins, both with Cystic Fibrosis. We could establish a decent health care system to preserve their lives to the best of our ability, but instead we went with not doing so in order to give you, personally, a chance to get a hit of grace. But you lack the ability to take care of both girls’ needs. Which member of my family would you have die, Nicole or Leanne?
Then make that argument. Make the argument that the sacrifice that you are asking of these children by trading their healthcare to provide this tax cut to the wealthy will ultimately make these children better off.
The problem is, you cannot do that, because you know that tax cuts for the wealthy are not going to improve the economy. So you just have to distract.
You are really clueless about the only one supporting you here uh? Bigot X10. (and more to the point, bigoted against Hispanics that AFAIK Bricker is also a descendant of)
And remember about the fringe of a fringe? He is also an atheist that does not care that religion is imposing draconian rules via the Republicans. Tapeworms in the head.
“Sound economic decision”? You seem to think that Bricker and other right-wingo sickos have utilitarian values. Despite their pretense of steering toward economic prosperity(*), for them America is just a giant morality play. Poor children deserve their diseases because they lacked the Christian ethos to be born to rich parents. Many of them think the Final Judgement is coming soon; they want to be able to stand before Saint Peter and testify that they did the Lord’s work by inflicting suffering and thereby testing the moral values of other human beings.
(* - Sickly children help the economy by forcing up the price of medical services thereby inflating GDP? Is that it? I dunno. I’ll admit to not fully understanding the economic “theories” of the quintessential quartet of right-wing intellects — Paul Ryan, Clothahump, Ann Coulter and Bricker.)
Don’t mean to double reply to this, but why do you think that the standards for the poor are higher than they were in 1917? Is it because of the economy, or is it becuase of programs like CHIP? If we get rid of CHIP, and WIC, and SNAP, and TANF, and Section 8, and the other 27 programs that you would like to see cut in order for the wealthy get their tax cut, if you take all of that away, do you think that their standard of living will still be higher than it was in 1917?
The reason that our poorest are dramatically better off is because of the gov’t programs that you so despise, not because of improvements in the economy. Poor people without jobs are not going to do any better, no matter how wealthy other people are, unless some of that wealth is redistributed to them, in the very programs that you want to cut.
We will always have the poor. That is a given. Unless we have a drastic change in the way everything works, or drop capitalism altogether, there will always be those who are less fortunate. Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not eliminate the poor. Giving a tax cut to the wealthy will not improve the standard of living for the poor. Only actually giving resources to the poor will increase the standard of living for the poor.
Which of these things(and I do mean things) is not like the others?
You miss Bricker’s point. He doesn’t want to improve the living standard of the poor if it means he can’t upgrade the leather in his next Mercedes or Porche. Or have a bigger house with rooms he’ll never use. Or more importantly, a gated community so he’s further isolated from those he considers beneath him. He’s tired of scraping the poor off his shoes.
Maybe not for everyone though. 1917, huh? So, pre-New Deal? I can’t imagine why that might be true. What if the rise in standard of living in the last 100 years can be attributed to social policies that spreads the result of economic growth to all of its citizens as opposed to a wealthy few?
Providing for the health, education, and well-being of American children is a short-term fix? A society that doesn’t benefit from the well-being of its children is a society that will eventually die out from lack of human capital and productivity.
What if your beliefs are incorrect? What are the ramifications of redirecting our nation’s resources to increase wealth for a select few at the expense of the well-being of the next generation of workers and thinkers?
What do lawyers know about tapeworms? Oh right. To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom.
I can hope anyhow, after all he did claim to seek information. But I also do think that you are likely to be right. No matter, I post to educate others, not the ones that thought that they were fighting monsters like Bricker who ended up in reality becoming the monsters.