A question for the "so-called" pro-life people:

[Dawkinsrocks]

Of course, I forgot, god killing people is fine

As is getting his mate the devil to burn them forever

I suppose that supporting a system that inevitably kills innocent people (like capital punishment and war) is OK because you can claim that the deaths were unintentional even though you know they are inevitable.

So maybe abortionists should remove the foetus and try to keep it alive. Then the death would be unintentional. Would that work for you?

 

[PLC1]

Of course, I forgot, god killing people is fine

As is getting his mate the devil to burn them forever

I suppose that supporting a system that inevitably kills innocent people (like capital punishment and war) is OK because you can claim that the deaths were unintentional even though you know they are inevitable.

So maybe abortionists should remove the foetus and try to keep it alive. Then the death would be unintentional. Would that work for you?

Actually, I'm against capital punishment and against any war that isn't engaged in for the purpose of protecting the nation from a clear and present danger.
I'm one of those dang pacifists who have been against the war in Iraq since the beginning, and one of those terrible "liberals" who don't believe that the government should have the power to end anyone's life, regardless of what heinous crimes they may have committed.

Just in case the above post was in response to me.

 

[dogtowner]

You and many Atheists seem to not only hate but also fear organized religion. You never speak of the good religion does. You only look for bad things to talk about and if we disagree with you, you will post for hours on end about how wrong and horrible Chriatianity is. If we attempt to defend our fath you become extremely agitated and resort to insults.

In my opinion Atheist zealots are far worse than religious zealots. Like the Muslims they believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is their enemy. The difference is that instead of using bombs they use the courts in their attempts to destroy organized religion.

the more shrill they are, the more they fear being mistaken.

dont believe ? then dont believe. attack and show yourself for what you really are.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I do fear religion and with very good reason

Loving, caring religious people through the ages have tortured and murdered millions of people for not agreeing with their lunatic ideas

I fear that religion will continue to hold back science with it's elevation of ignorance

I fear that injustice will continue in it's name. Homophobia, racism misogyny etc

But I do not fear the ludicrous arguments from christians on this board. They are clear proof of how unhinged you have to be to accept the mythology of religion as fact

Now back to the subject. Plc is the only poster who has any credibility as a pro lifer although I wonder is plc a vegan or is your pro life stance species-ist?

 

[Gipper]

I do fear religion and with very good reason

Loving, caring religious people through the ages have tortured and murdered millions of people for not agreeing with their lunatic ideas

I fear that religion will continue to hold back science with it's elevation of ignorance

I fear that injustice will continue in it's name. Homophobia, racism misogyny etc

But I do not fear the ludicrous arguments from christians on this board. They are clear proof of how unhinged you have to be to accept the mythology of religion as fact

Now back to the subject. Plc is the only poster who has any credibility as a pro lifer although I wonder is plc a vegan or is your pro life stance species-ist?

This is an example of Christophobia. It is an opinion held by many on the Left. We have seen it here at the HOP many times.

Ironically the left's hatred of the religious leads them to commit heinous crimes against humanity....the very same crimes they claim to abhor when committed by Christians. Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left. Good examples of this are the treatment of religious peoples in the USSR and China. Both nations were wholly and completely controlled by leftist ideology and they murdered or imprisoned religious people in droves.

And...the haters of Christianity completely ignore the numerous GOOD things committed by Christians throughout history. They apparently are not intelligent enough to recognize the truth. Their hate overwhelms them.

Western civilization would not exist had Christianity not exited...though I suppose the radical leftist would like that.......

 

[dogtowner]

I do fear religion and with very good reason

Loving, caring religious people through the ages have tortured and murdered millions of people for not agreeing with their lunatic ideas

I fear that religion will continue to hold back science with it's elevation of ignorance

I fear that injustice will continue in it's name. Homophobia, racism misogyny etc

But I do not fear the ludicrous arguments from christians on this board. They are clear proof of how unhinged you have to be to accept the mythology of religion as fact

Now back to the subject. Plc is the only poster who has any credibility as a pro lifer although I wonder is plc a vegan or is your pro life stance species-ist?

millions ? like Hitler Pol Pot Stalin Mao ? looks like the non religous are more deadly.

 

[PLC1]

It seems to me it is power that makes men deadly. There have been religious leaders of the past who committed some pretty heinous acts in the name of Christianity. Christianity has pretty much cleaned up its act, but there still are Islamists who use religion as an excuse for violence. Religion has a way of allowing some men to have power over other men, and power does corrupt.

That said, had Constantine, rather that Maxentius, drowned at the battle of Milvian Bridge, how might today's world be different?

 

[Dr.Who]

It seems to me it is power that makes men deadly.

Sounds like a good reason to have some pretty serious limitations on the role and scope of government. Right? A government that can tax anything at any rate for any purpose is by no means limited. Even if the purpose for taxation were limited the unlimited amount that could be taxed still means that said gov is not limited. The only limited gov is one in which what can be taxed is limited (originally part of our constitution), the top rate is limited, and the purpose is limited (presently part of our constitution but simply ignored).

 

[Dr.Who]

This is an example of Christophobia. It is an opinion held by many on the Left. We have seen it here at the HOP many times.

Yes we have seen such Christophobia (the accurate definition since he and they actually admit to fearing Christianity, unlike homophobia in which people who dislike homosexuality for reasons both justified and unjustified are said to fear it) here and there many times. Some people are better at cloaking it in high minded rhetoric than others.

It is interesting to see the interplay of ideas in movements. The left tends to be tree hugging, anti-theist, collectivists and the right tends to be (no not tree killing) pro-business, traditional, constitutionalists. I of course hate the republicans who take pro-business to the criminal extreme, traditional to the restrictive extreme, and well constitutionalism is not extreme. What is extreme is simply to ignore the document and pretend to have some rule of law.

 

[PLC1]

Sounds like a good reason to have some pretty serious limitations on the role and scope of government. Right?

Yes, for sure. That is what we're supposed to have, isn't it?

A government that can tax anything at any rate for any purpose is by no means limited. Even if the purpose for taxation were limited the unlimited amount that could be taxed still means that said gov is not limited. The only limited gov is one in which what can be taxed is limited (originally part of our constitution), the top rate is limited, and the purpose is limited (presently part of our constitution but simply ignored).

Whatever happened to taxation with representation, in which we can hold our representatives accountable for the taxes they approve?

or, have people just dumped their obligations as citizens and allowed government to run amok?

 

[Cruella]

Yes, for sure. That is what we're supposed to have, isn't it?


Whatever happened to taxation with representation, in which we can hold our representatives accountable for the taxes they approve?

or, have people just dumped their obligations as citizens and allowed government to run amok?

Representation? You mean the people who get voted into office for what they can promise to hand out to their voters from the treasury? The same voters that are cluess about how the country operates?

 

[dogtowner]

Representation? You mean the people who get voted into office for what they can promise to hand out to their voters from the treasury? The same voters that are cluess about how the country operates?

some certainly are clueless but all are happy to ride the gravy train till it derails.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh dear. Christians do their war mongering either in the name of god or claiming to have god on their side ( by the way the US supported Pol Pot, and stood by whilst Hitler murdered millions of Jews which is why the US had to allow Pearl Harbour to happen to sell the war to the US citizens)

You seem to be making the argument that because I say Christians are bad I must be saying atheists are good

I am not saying that so your point is ridiculous

There are plenty of bad atheists. They do have the advantage of not claiming to be doing their badness in the name of a loving benevolent creator but that is all.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, for sure. That is what we're supposed to have, isn't it?


Whatever happened to taxation with representation, in which we can hold our representatives accountable for the taxes they approve?

or, have people just dumped their obligations as citizens and allowed government to run amok?

Apparently the answer is yes. It is abundantly clear that citizens are holding no politician accountable except in cases of the most juicy scandals. It is clear that we cannot rely on the power of the vote to check congress. That is the purpose of the rest of the checks and balances after all. Would other checks even exist if the vote could be relied upon?

 

[PLC1]

Apparently the answer is yes. It is abundantly clear that citizens are holding no politician accountable except in cases of the most juicy scandals. It is clear that we cannot rely on the power of the vote to check congress. That is the purpose of the rest of the checks and balances after all. Would other checks even exist if the vote could be relied upon?

Government of the people and by the people won't work if the people abrogate their responsibility. That's the root cause of the fiscal irresponsibility and of passage of laws contrary to the Bill of Rights.