Something to think about

[Fitz]

I still am not getting how it's persecution to have your company pay for only 12/15 methods of contraception, or whatever it was.

ZOMG WAR ON WOMENZ

[Balog]

I still am not getting how it's persecution to have your company pay for only 12/15 methods of contraception, or whatever it was.

ZOMG WAR ON WOMENZ

When people try to live their lives in accordance to their religion, it means that they sometimes do things outside of their own homes. And when you do something religious in public where other people can see it, you oppress and persecute them. Duh.

Get the government out of my bedroom, and force religion to never leave it! Freedom!

[cordex]

Hmm ... tried to post earlier but apparently it was lost in the ether.

Its the baby steps toward a theocracy that causes my concern.

You see baby steps toward theocracy in what, specifically?  What about sweeping government regulation and ever-increasing expansion of Federal power?  What is that a baby step toward?

As far as polarization being The Problem, it is ridiculous to think that polite disagreement should be expected when one or both parties are trying to forcibly control (say, via governmental regulation) the decisions of the other.

[Balog]

The desire for a society where everyone just gets along and co-exists in love and harmony is just as big a utopian fantasy as communism.

[lupinus]

If the government stayed within it's bound in the first place this would be a non-issue. How the hell is NOT forcing a company to provide something a baby step towards theocracy?

[Tallpine]

If the government stayed within it's bound in the first place this would be a non-issue. How the hell is NOT forcing a company to provide something a baby step towards theocracy?

Say, your coat is sort of a brownish color ......



 

[charby]

I guess no matter what we think or feel, it doesn't matter. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide
substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased
Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

[brimic]

I guess no matter what we think or feel, it doesn't matter. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy

You were worried about what before? 

[charby]

You were worried about what before? 

Pretty much, I better get started on my multi billion dollar ag/oil/coal/chemical/airplane/gas/computer/bank/timber corporation.

[fifth_column]

I guess no matter what we think or feel, it doesn't matter. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy

This is what I was saying before about justice and being treated equally under the law.  The 'haves,' even though they are a minority, will always win out over the majority of 'have nots.'  It's been this way for humanity since agriculture was developed.  Somehow the species still survives.  The desire to stop being a 'have not', and strive towards becoming a 'have' is an integral, indispensable aspect of humanity.  It cannot be overridden except on an individual level, and even then only with significant effort.  Each of us are products of competition, from the very moment of conception.

[Angel Eyes]

"...average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

Isn't the NRA a mass-based interest group?

How about AARP?

[Ben]

"...average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

Isn't the NRA a mass-based interest group?

How about AARP?

Or Environmental Defense Center and Center for Biological Diversity for that matter. Through lawsuits and government connections, they have extremely high influence that often trumps that of the evil business CEOs.

[roo_ster]

Or Environmental Defense Center and Center for Biological Diversity for that matter. Through lawsuits and government connections, they have extremely high influence that often trumps that of the evil business CEOs.

How many of those are Soros/other lefty billionaire projects?

[Ben]

How many of those are Soros/other lefty billionaire projects?

I don't think either of those two are "projects" as it were, of any left-leaning billionaires. I don't know that Soros gives them money, but Hollywood and others certainly do. Something like PEW is probably more in line with being the brainchild of  billionaires (or their progeny, anyway).

[Scout26]

Its the baby steps toward a theocracy that causes my concern.

I guess I've missed the news stories about the mass round-ups of people in Iowa and making them attend religious services.    

"Baby Steps toward Theocracy"?  Boy, are you looking for the wrong hob-goblins under your bed.   This country has been moving away from religion(s) for years.  Go and look back on the history of this nation.  The founders were constantly invoking G-d and seeking divine intervention in all they did and were doing.  Probably the only time this country was a "theocracy" was when the pilgrims ran the place.

The difference is one of belief.  Most folks here on APS see .gov for what it truly is.  A necessary evil and as such should be kept as small as possible.  Requiring an employer to provide/pay for drugs and/or treatments that are contrary to the owners deeply held beliefs is evil.  Hence, the Freedom of Religion statement in the 1A of the BOR.   There isn't an asterisk in there that says "Unless the law says otherwise."  There also is no requirement for you or anyone else to work at Hobby Lobby.  You don't like their benefits package, go work somewhere else.   See Freedom.  It's a wonderful thing.

P.S.   .Gov does not confer "Benefits".  Being allowed to keep more of what you produce, or live as you see fit is NOT a "Benefit".  

[Scout26]

In fact, let's go back and look at what the Founder's intent was.  They clearly laid it out in the Preamble.

We the People,

1.  In order to form a more perfect union,  The Articles of Confederation didn't work and caused more problems then it solved.  Hopefully this will work out better.

2.  establish justice,  To establish courts to try cases to ensure contracts are upheld and bad people punished.

3.  insure domestic Tranquility, That whole states and people fighting each other.

4.  provide for the common defence, Despite the British spelling, this is were the 2A comes from.

5.   promote the general Welfare,  Do note the difference in wording from the statement above.  Provide vs promote.   Provide means "to make (something) available : to supply (something that is wanted or needed), to pay for or ensure".  Promote means "to help (something) happen, develop, or increase" or "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of".  The best way for .gov to promote the general welfare is to get out of the way.

6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,  To not become an authoritarian government that destroys the freedom of the people, by severely limiting the power of government over peoples lives.   

So there it is.

A better government then either monarchy or the one established by the Articles of Confederation, with unbiased jury courts, in a civil society, protected from all evils, allowing people to live as they see fit, in freedom for themselves and their children.

See it's not so hard to understand what they were driving at.   However, the modern leftists look at .gov to be a force for good, when all a .gov can do is destroy.  Which is probably why .gov's are really good at military stuff. 

[makattak]

I guess I've missed the news stories about the mass round-ups of people in Iowa and making them attend religious services.    

"Baby Steps toward Theocracy"?  Boy, are you looking for the wrong hob-goblins under your bed.   This country has been moving away from religion(s) for years.  Go and look back on the history of this nation.  The founders were constantly invoking G-d and seeking divine intervention in all they did and were doing.  Probably the only time this country was a "theocracy" was when the pilgrims ran the place.

The difference is one of belief.  Most folks here on APS see .gov for what it truly is.  A necessary evil and as such should be kept as small as possible.  Requiring an employer to provide/pay for drugs and/or treatments that are contrary to the owners deeply held beliefs is evil.  Hence, the Freedom of Religion statement in the 1A of the BOR.   There isn't an asterisk in there that says "Unless the law says otherwise."  There also is no requirement for you or anyone else to work at Hobby Lobby.  You don't like their benefits package, go work somewhere else.   See Freedom.  It's a wonderful thing.

P.S.   .Gov does not confer "Benefits".  Being allowed to keep more of what you produce, or live as you see fit is NOT a "Benefit". 

Honestly, what is really worrying many who are decrying the recent Hobby Lobby decision is allowing Christians to continue to consider homosexuals as sinful individuals for their choices.

They want the government to be able to force Christians to recognize homosexual "marriages" as just as valid as heterosexual marriages and they recognize that a freedom to practice religion will get in the way of that. That is why they are so animated about birth control here. They are looking long term and if Chrisitians are allowed to use the excuse of their religion to resist aiding someone in sin, they fear that that same justification will be used when the government tries to force, to choose a random example, a cake baker to bake a cake in celebration of a homosexual "marriage."

[Balog]

In fact, let's go back and look at what the Founder's intent was.  They clearly laid it out in the Preamble.

We the People,

1.  In order to form a more perfect union,  The Articles of Confederation didn't work and caused more problems then it solved.  Hopefully this will work out better.

2.  establish justice,  To establish courts to try cases to ensure contracts are upheld and bad people punished.

3.  insure domestic Tranquility, That whole states and people fighting each other.

4.  provide for the common defence, Despite the British spelling, this is were the 2A comes from.

5.   promote the general Welfare,  Do note the difference in wording from the statement above.  Provide vs promote.   Provide means "to make (something) available : to supply (something that is wanted or needed), to pay for or ensure".  Promote means "to help (something) happen, develop, or increase" or "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of".  The best way for .gov to promote the general welfare is to get out of the way.

6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,  To not become an authoritarian government that destroys the freedom of the people, by severely limiting the power of government over peoples lives.   

So there it is.

A better government then either monarchy or the one established by the Articles of Confederation, with unbiased jury courts, in a civil society, protected from all evils, allowing people to live as they see fit, in freedom for themselves and their children.

See it's not so hard to understand what they were driving at.   However, the modern leftists look at .gov to be a force for good, when all a .gov can do is destroy.  Which is probably why .gov's are really good at military stuff. 

I'm not so sure about the bold part anymore.

[Scout26]

I'm not so sure about the bold part anymore.

Like I stated, the preamble was simply the founders intent.  What we've allowed to happen is on us, not them.

[MicroBalrog]

Sharia is a religious law that has a political element and supports, even mandates violence and it's misogynist supporters are good with that. 

Your understanding of Sharia is limited.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Limited ?or bounded by the reality of its practice in the real world as opposed to a hypothetical?

[roo_ster]

Limited ?or bounded by the reality of its practice in the real world as opposed to a hypothetical?

"No true Scotsman Sharia Law?"
"No true Scotsman Communism?"
"No true Scotsman Socialism?"

[brimic]

Dpes any of this fall  under sharia law?

http://forum.maxvelocitytactical.com/forums/topic/isis-terror-against-children-warning-extreme-graphic-pictures/

[roo_ster]

Dpes any of this fall  under sharia law?

http://forum.maxvelocitytactical.com/forums/topic/isis-terror-against-children-warning-extreme-graphic-pictures/

Why, yes, it does:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-islamic-state-is-right-about-some-things/

TL;DR
Assad and other brutalists see brutality as a means to an end.  ISIS sees the slaughter of non-Muslims as an end and commanded by Allah.

[brimic]

Why, yes, it does:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-islamic-state-is-right-about-some-things/

TL;DR
Assad and other brutalists see brutality as a means to an end.  ISIS sees the slaughter of non-Muslims as an end and commanded by Allah.

I kind of figured that.