Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[shmogie]

The issue here is about 'conservatives'; not Republicans or Democrats. I made a correction in my post to that effect.



Not diluted, equalized and standardized across the board. This is America, not Confederate Texas.



'Their people' are, in the larger context, 'Americans'. And as I understand it, Federal Law overrules State Law in the case of conflict. That is why Federal troops could be called into the South during the Civil Rights era.

Pro-choice and pro-life are matters of personal choice, and therefore, a right to choose. Whatever one choses is a matter universal to all women across state lines. It is an issue outside of state boundaries.

The article referred to 'health providers who perform abortions'. That can include Planned Parenthood, but also includes medical doctors or any other certified medical facility.

The issue here is about 'conservatives'; not Republicans or Democrats. I made a correction in my post to that effect.



Not diluted, equalized and standardized across the board. This is America, not Confederate Texas.



'Their people' are, in the larger context, 'Americans'. And as I understand it, Federal Law overrules State Law in the case of conflict. That is why Federal troops could be called into the South during the Civil Rights era.

Pro-choice and pro-life are matters of personal choice, and therefore, a right to choose. Whatever one choses is a matter universal to all women across state lines. It is an issue outside of state boundaries.

The article referred to 'health providers who perform abortions'. That can include Planned Parenthood, but also includes medical doctors or any other certified medical facility.

The Constitution makes no provision for this kind of meddling by the federal government. If one of the enumerated rights of a citizen is violated, that is one thing, but demanding a state spends tax money on what it doesn't want to.

As to abortion , no one has the right to murder another person, just because that person is inconvenient.

The warren court, in Roe v Wade wanted desperately to approve abortion, but they were terrified of ruling on the direct murder of a baby.So, they came up with a con. They created the unenumerated right to privacy, no where to be found in the Constitution. So, there con is, what happens between a doctor and patient is private, no one can "look" at what they do, therefore abortion is incidental,it,s all private, if they decide to murder a baby, the law cannot act, because what happened is screened by this new right.

A woman giving birth at 7 months, can decide she doesn't want the baby. She can go to the NICU and strangle it, and she goes to jail for murder.

In the same hospital on the same day, a woman overdue at 9 months + can connive with her doctor to have this baby partially born, then stabbed in the heart or brain, with no accountability for either of them. It happens. And viable babies are murdered every day.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the right to" LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to everyone. No one has the right to commit murder, and someday the supremes will say so, and the government sanctioned genocide will stop.
The warren court, wanting to cave on abortion, but terrified of granting open murder, came up with a bizarre scam to get it through. They came up with the unenumerated right of "privacy"

 

[shmogie]

You might like the following:

The Handmaid’s Tale is the second dystopian work of speculative fiction—after George Orwell’s 1984—to suddenly appear on top of the bestseller lists years after its release. The renewed interest in Margaret Atwood’s classic story of a post-apocalyptic America dominated by a puritanical religious sect that reduces most women to subjugated breeder status stems from both the current political atmosphere in the United States and the adaptation airing on Hulu (starring Elizabeth Moss, Alexis Bledel, and Joseph Fiennes).​

Why would I be interested in that. ? Can't happen, won't happen, and curtailing abortion after the first trimester has nothing to do with anything, other than stopping the murder of a baby. Failing to ensure an unwanted pregnancy us prevented by birth control, and failing for 90 days to have a non specialized clump of cells aborted, says something about the woman, not her rights. She hasn't the right to murder.

My hypothetical father is draining my bank account, he is ga ga in a nursing home at 92. He is inconvenient, I don't want him around anymore. I want him euthanized. My rights are being violated by having him live.

The logical extension of the abortion inconvenient argument, kill'em all.
'

 

[shmogie]

I don't see that. The right amount of regulation is that wherein any more or any less make things worse.

That idea seems to me to be a myth promulgated by conservative indoctrination sources to manufacture support for deregulating industry in a way that they claim will make things better, but never seems to do that - at least not for the middle and lower classes, whose economic status has been steadily declining since the Reagan years when all of this anti-government business took off. What's happened since then? There were two or three billionaires in the early 80's (Gates, Buffet, Perot - all very prominent names) and now, the president's administration alone contains several of them, none of which many of us have ever heard of before - Commerce Secretary Ross, Deputy Commerce Secretary Rickets, Education Secretary DeVos, Small Business Administration head McMahon, and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin (actually only about a half billion), and many multimillionaires such as HUD Secreatary Carson and Transportation Secretary Chao.

What has happened as you no doubt know has been a transfer of wealth from the middle class into the hands of major players in various industries, and not because they all of a sudden got smarter or more efficient or innovative, but because they were allowed to make money in new ways that left the public with the mess. The banking industry is a prime example. The taxpayer footed the bill for the bailout as bankers got obscenely rich thanks to banking deregulation.

I found this amusing (can't get the image, so here's the link - sorry about the insulting language, but the message is on point): special kind of stupid

These people are deregulating away as fast as they can. And who do we think that they're doing that for? Not you and me.

That's what all of that talk about deregulation was about. Did you benefit from any of it? I didn't - not to my knowledge.

In fact, my profession - medicine - was beset with intense regulation during my career coming from both the HMO's, who were insufferable to work with, and government through its oversight of Medicaid and Medicare. Onerous burdens were imposed on us, including unfunded mandates to convert to electronic medical record systems - about a $40,000 out of pocket expense for software, staff training, and conversion of existing paper records to digital format that generates no revenue.

Whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, these are conservatives. Coservatives serve the wealthy class at the expense of ordinary Americans.




The Republicans want less regulation of industry. They're very happy to micromanage the lives of ordinary people. Give them a chance and they will take away the right to an abortion, the right to same sex marriage, and the right of LGBT to serve in the military. Many would take away women's right to vote.

The deregulation that the Republicans want is the ability to drill for oil off pristine shores, to mine the national parks, to dump more toxins into the ground, water and air, and to let the banking industry go back to where it was during the roaring twenties and last decade.

Whew, there is no RIGHT to abortion, or marriage of any kind, no one has any right to serve in the military. Fat people, too short people, diabetic people, people with celiac disease, people with paranoia , people who think they are flowerpots can't serve, why the special carve out for people who are biologically one sex but are pretending to be another ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would I be interested in that. ?

It's a fictional story about an extremist Christian-like culture in which fertile women are conceived as incubators. Is that much different than preventing pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies from having safe and legal abortion as an option?

Can't happen, won't happen

It will if the Dominionists gain control of the government. Are you familiar with them?

"The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North​

I assure you that these people will severely limit your freedoms if given the chance - well, maybe not yours since you might approve of all of their changes - but certainly those of all non-Christians. Would you consider that freedom of religion?

What do you think this guys views on women's rights are?

This is the power of this story, and others like it such as 1984 and A Clockwork Orange. They're warnings about a possible future, much of which has already come to pass

Remember this guy?

"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"- Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue
​

What do you think his vision for America and its women is?

curtailing abortion after the first trimester has nothing to do with anything, other than stopping the murder of a baby.

Abortions are not done on babies, nor is feticide murder in the US unless done too late - at least for now.

My hypothetical father is draining my bank account, he is ga ga in a nursing home at 92. He is inconvenient, I don't want him around anymore. I want him euthanized. My rights are being violated by having him live. The logical extension of the abortion inconvenient argument, kill'em all.

America, like the Bible, makes a distinction between people and fetuses and embryos. According tto the Bible, life begins with the first breath.

After that first breath, the US government grant that baby what is now a baby a birth certificate and a social security number like all other people then. Fetuses don't get those.

Calling an embryo or fetus a baby, or its intrauterine ablation murder, doesn't change the moral status of legal abortion. Doing so purely an appeal to emotion fallacy. Whatever you call any of these things.

It also deflects from the issue of who should decide if an unwanted pregnancy is carried to term - the potential mother, or the church using the power of the state, which, if it had its way, would return America to the era of illegal and potentially lethal back alley abortions in the service of a religious view. That may be your view, too, but its not everybody's.

Whew, there is no RIGHT to abortion, or marriage of any kind, no one has any right to serve in the military.

Actually, there is. Those rights are granted by the Constitution or by statute.

Do you think that you have a right to your faith? If so, based on what?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Masterpiece baker who denied a same sex couple a cake based on religious beliefs, then America getting closer to a time when Christians can be denied service on the same basis. At that point, aren't your present rights considerably diminished? Couldn't somebody refuse to hire you because it offends his religious sensibilities to have Christians in the office? That's what Christians are presently trying to do to all others.

That's how rights are determined in the States, yours as well

 

[godnotgod]

The Constitution makes no provision for this kind of meddling by the federal government. If one of the enumerated rights of a citizen is violated, that is one thing, but demanding a state spends tax money on what it doesn't want to.

As to abortion , no one has the right to murder another person, just because that person is inconvenient.

The warren court, in Roe v Wade wanted desperately to approve abortion, but they were terrified of ruling on the direct murder of a baby.So, they came up with a con. They created the unenumerated right to privacy, no where to be found in the Constitution. So, there con is, what happens between a doctor and patient is private, no one can "look" at what they do, therefore abortion is incidental,it,s all private, if they decide to murder a baby, the law cannot act, because what happened is screened by this new right.

A woman giving birth at 7 months, can decide she doesn't want the baby. She can go to the NICU and strangle it, and she goes to jail for murder.

In the same hospital on the same day, a woman overdue at 9 months + can connive with her doctor to have this baby partially born, then stabbed in the heart or brain, with no accountability for either of them. It happens. And viable babies are murdered every day.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the right to" LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to everyone. No one has the right to commit murder, and someday the supremes will say so, and the government sanctioned genocide will stop.
The warren court, wanting to cave on abortion, but terrified of granting open murder, came up with a bizarre scam to get it through. They came up with the unenumerated right of "privacy"

I am not going to argue pro-life or pro-choice with you. But the counter argument to yours is whether a baby can be considered to be a person or not, and how abortion or no abortion relates to a woman's health. If there is no such 'person' involved, then there is no 'murder' either. But whether abortion is right or wrong is not the issue here. And your argument of 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' can also be argued from the POV of a woman who wants an abortion. In that sense, we are talking federal regulation. Once again: women are universal to all 50 states, and not to particular states alone. IOW, this is not about religious beliefs as they apply to certain states, and how they view abortion; but to the universal right of a woman to end the life of her own fetus anywhere in America. Again, I am not arguing right or wrong here.

 

[shmogie]

I am not going to argue pro-life or pro-choice with you. But the counter argument to yours is whether a baby can be considered to be a person or not, and how abortion or no abortion relates to a woman's health. If there is no such 'person' involved, then there is no 'murder' either. But whether abortion is right or wrong is not the issue here. And your argument of 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' can also be argued from the POV of a woman who wants an abortion. In that sense, we are talking federal regulation. Once again: women are universal to all 50 states, and not to particular states alone. IOW, this is not about religious beliefs as they apply to certain states, and how they view abortion; but to the universal right of a woman to end the life of her own fetus anywhere in America. Again, I am not arguing right or wrong here.

It isn't a right, that is my point. It has never been a right. What you confuse as a right to abortion, is an unenumerated right of privacy. There has never been any legal finding that an unborn baby is not a person, my whole point, and one of which most are ignorant.

 

[shmogie]

It's a fictional story about an extremist Christian-like culture in which fertile women are conceived as incubators. Is that much different than preventing pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies from having safe and legal abortion as an option?



It will if the Dominionists gain control of the government. Are you familiar with them?

"The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North​

I assure you that these people will severely limit your freedoms if given the chance - well, maybe not yours since you might approve of all of their changes - but certainly those of all non-Christians. Would you consider that freedom of religion?

What do you think this guys views on women's rights are?

This is the power of this story, and others like it such as 1984 and A Clockwork Orange. They're warnings about a possible future, much of which has already come to pass

Remember this guy?

"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"- Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue
​

What do you think his vision for America and its women is?



Abortions are not done on babies, nor is feticide murder in the US unless done too late - at least for now.



America, like the Bible, makes a distinction between people and fetuses and embryos. According tto the Bible, life begins with the first breath.

After that first breath, the US government grant that baby what is now a baby a birth certificate and a social security number like all other people then. Fetuses don't get those.

Calling an embryo or fetus a baby, or its intrauterine ablation murder, doesn't change the moral status of legal abortion. Doing so purely an appeal to emotion fallacy. Whatever you call any of these things.

It also deflects from the issue of who should decide if an unwanted pregnancy is carried to term - the potential mother, or the church using the power of the state, which, if it had its way, would return America to the era of illegal and potentially lethal back alley abortions in the service of a religious view. That may be your view, too, but its not everybody's.



Actually, there is. Those rights are granted by the Constitution or by statute.

Do you think that you have a right to your faith? If so, based on what?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Masterpiece baker who denied a same sex couple a cake based on religious beliefs, then America getting closer to a time when Christians can be denied service on the same basis. At that point, aren't your present rights considerably diminished? Couldn't somebody refuse to hire you because it offends his religious sensibilities to have Christians in the office? That's what Christians are presently trying to do to all others.

That's how rights are determined in the States, yours as well

Your field was medicine, mine was the law. Allow me to impart a little information, Rights are determined by the Constitution, nothing else. That is what the Constitution, the total foundation for law says. No right can be created, it is either in the Constitution and can be protected by law, or it isn't a right. There are no homosexual rights, or right to marriage. The first doesn't exist and the second is a privilege, not a right. Homosexuals have the same rights as all of the rest of us, no more, no less. There is no right to abortion, only the alleged unenumerated right to privacy. The law has never addressed the issue of an unborn baby being a person. There is no right to serve in the military, it to is a privilege,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There has never been any legal finding that an unborn baby is not a person, my whole point, and one of which most are ignorant.

But that point isn't relevant to the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong, or legal, or a right. Using words like person, life, baby, human, and human being don't change anything. Feel free to call a fetus a person or a baby. It doesn't change the moral status of the act of aborting it.

Nor does saying that life begins at conception. OK. And how does that connect to a moral judgment. No fact leads to a moral judgment the is/ought chasm. No argument that begins with what is can conclude what ought to be without a moral precept being added, one also not derived empiriically.

These are subjective judgment calls. We differ here. We can agree about what is - abortions end lives - and disagree about the ought part. You think that means that it should be illegal. I don't

Your field was medicine, mine was the law. Allow me to impart a little information, Rights are determined by the Constitution, nothing else. That is what the Constitution, the total foundation for law says. No right can be created, it is either in the Constitution and can be protected by law, or it isn't a right. There are no homosexual rights, or right to marriage. The first doesn't exist and the second is a privilege, not a right. Homosexuals have the same rights as all of the rest of us, no more, no less. There is no right to abortion, only the alleged unenumerated right to privacy. The law has never addressed the issue of an unborn baby being a person. There is no right to serve in the military, it to is a privilege,

It seems that you are using a different definition of right than I am. I would include any option supported and protected by the law a right. If the speed limit is raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, I now have the right to drive 60 MPH.

 

[shmogie]

Your field was medicine, mine was the law. Allow me to impart a little information, Rights are determined by the Constitution, nothing else. That is what the Constitution, the total foundation for law says. No right can be created, it is either in the Constitution and can be protected by law, or it isn't a right. There are no homosexual rights, or right to marriage. The first doesn't exist and the second is a privilege, not a right. Homosexuals have the same rights as all of the rest of us, no more, no less. There is no right to abortion, only the alleged unenumerated right to privacy. The law has never addressed the issue of an unborn baby being a person. There is no right to serve in the military, it to is a privilege,

Sorry, hit the wrong button !! A privilege, like a drivers license.

The problem is that people believe the USA is a democracy. A democracy is where the majority rules on all things. The USA is a Constitutional Republic. The majority cannot, by the Constitution, strip anyone of their rights, even if it is something loathed by 99.9 of the population, against .01 % of the population, if what that tiny percentage loathed for is their Constitutional right, the majority cannot deny it. Just as the majority cannot declare rights they think is important, tough, neither can be done.

So, I am totally opposed to any group or faction on either side of any issue trying to usurp the Constitution, extreme lefty's try, those right wing extremists try the same nonsense as well.

There is a legal saying, " your rights end exactly where mine begin" . You want one right to trump another, because from your world view one is more important than another. It doesn't work that way. Both are equally important, equally valuable, equally unalienable. Where they conflict, ultimately the supreme court has to split the baby, by the Constitution. If I am a Christian cake decorator, and a homosexual wants a cake with kitty's or tigers on it, I have an obligation to bake and decorate it. If he wants one that says happy wedding ! Rufus loves Bruce with two groom figures I will not do it. I will not be compelled to participate in any way in a act, service or rite that my faith tells me I cannot. That is my right. they can go somewhere else. You don't like it. Tough. The Constitution guarantees my right to freely practice my religion, and a right apply's everywhere at any time, I don't check it at the door when I open my shop.

 

[shmogie]

But that point isn't relevant to the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong, or legal, or a right. Using words like person, life, baby, human, and human being don't change anything. Feel free to call a fetus a person or a baby. It doesn't change the moral status of the act of aborting it.

Nor does saying that life begins at conception. OK. And how does that connect to a moral judgment. No fact leads to a moral judgment the is/ought chasm. No argument that begins with what is can conclude what ought to be without a moral precept being added, one also not derived empiriically.

These are subjective judgment calls. We differ here. We can agree about what is - abortions end lives - and disagree about the ought part. You think that means that it should be illegal. I don't



It seems that you are using a different definition of right than I am. I would include any option supported and protected by the law a right. If the speed limit is raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, I now have the right to drive 60 MPH.

Sorry, no, you have the privilege of driving 60 MPH. A right is granted by the Bill of Rights. Laws cannot eliminate, nor create a right. The Constitution can be amended, but it is a very difficult task. The Bill of rights has never had a right removed, or added. Though there have been clarifications of rights and specific protections of rights.

 

[shmogie]

But that point isn't relevant to the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong, or legal, or a right. Using words like person, life, baby, human, and human being don't change anything. Feel free to call a fetus a person or a baby. It doesn't change the moral status of the act of aborting it.

Nor does saying that life begins at conception. OK. And how does that connect to a moral judgment. No fact leads to a moral judgment the is/ought chasm. No argument that begins with what is can conclude what ought to be without a moral precept being added, one also not derived empiriically.

These are subjective judgment calls. We differ here. We can agree about what is - abortions end lives - and disagree about the ought part. You think that means that it should be illegal. I don't
It is irrelevant as to what our moral view of right and wrong should is. I think it is moral to execute a guilty murderer, you no doubt think it immoral. You think it moral to execute an innocent unborn baby, I do not. There is only one standard that applies, legal/illegal as defined by the Constitution.

It seems that you are using a different definition of right than I am. I would include any option supported and protected by the law a right. If the speed limit is raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, I now have the right to drive 60 MPH.

 

[godnotgod]

It isn't a right, that is my point. It has never been a right. What you confuse as a right to abortion, is an unenumerated right of privacy. There has never been any legal finding that an unborn baby is not a person, my whole point, and one of which most are ignorant.

If, as you claim, it is an 'unenumerated right of privacy', then that makes it a right. What is between the doctor and the patient is no one else's business, according to your definition. It seems to fall into the same category as psychiatrist/patient and priest/confessor

It is the Christian Right which puts forth the moral argument that an unborn fetus is a person, and therefore should not be aborted. And while it may be true that "there has never been any legal finding that an unborn baby is not a person", there has also not been any legal finding that it is, which is the crux of the question here. And as long as you persist in pointing out the legality of the issue, I submit to you the legal definition of 'person' as defined by Black's Law Dictionary Free 2nd Ed. and The Law Dictionary:

What is PERSON?

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.

What is PERSON? definition of PERSON (Black's Law Dictionary)

So is an unborn fetus a person, or a thing?

According to Georgetown Law Library, Roe vs Wade held that state bans on abortions were unconstitutional. That means that rights were being violated, in this case, women's constitutional rights, namely, reproductive rights, which are also civil rights:

"Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and held that a woman's constitutional rights were violated by states that banned abortion...

• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) - the case that held that state bans on abortions were unconstitutional."

Guides: A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: Women's Reproductive Rights

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, no, you have the privilege of driving 60 MPH. A right is granted by the Bill of Rights. Laws cannot eliminate, nor create a right. The Constitution can be amended, but it is a very difficult task. The Bill of rights has never had a right removed, or added. Though there have been clarifications of rights and specific protections of rights.

That driving is a privilege is something added into state motor vehicle handbooks as a means of stressing the importance of driving responsibly. But legally:

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads

The site lists a significant number of other court cases upholding the above ruling.

 

[godnotgod]

The Constitution makes no provision for this kind of meddling by the federal government. If one of the enumerated rights of a citizen is violated, that is one thing, but demanding a state spends tax money on what it doesn't want to.

But maybe the state has no say-so in the matter simply because it is in violation of Federal Law. States had to give way to Civil Rights and racial integration in the South because they were violating the constitutional rights of racial groups.

 

[godnotgod]

It will if the Dominionists gain control of the government. Are you familiar with them?

"The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North​

I assure you that these people will severely limit your freedoms if given the chance - well, maybe not yours since you might approve of all of their changes - but certainly those of all non-Christians. Would you consider that freedom of religion?

Thanks for bringing the issue of the rise of Dominionism up. Intuitively, I knew this was the next step, as it follows logically from the doctrine, but was not aware it had taken hold to the degree that it has. I am taking a look at it now, but as far as I can see, this can only lead to untold violence and misery in the name of 'Jesus', which will make it all OK, in the same manner that those Inquisitors who tortured and burned their victims were doing it 'for their own good', and did not blink an eyelash in administering such torture. Once these extremists gain control over the government and other institutions, they will demand allegiance. Those who refuse and put up a fight against such oppression will suffer great consequences. But the only way the Dominionists can maintain control is via armaments. Now we essentially have a Gestapo, but when they utilize the technologies available to them today to exercise their control over the non-Christians and Christians alike, it will make the Gestapo look like child's play. I remember reading about the hated Stasi, the East German Police at the time the wall came down. The citizenry stormed their headquarters to rout them, but they escaped through rear exits, their coffee mugs still warm. What was discovered in the basement were rows upon rows of jars, each labeled with the name of some political suspect, and with a cloth inside each jar. When a citizen became suspect of any political activity, he was tailed by a Stasi agent. If the suspect were in a coffee shop, for instance, the Stasi agent waited until he left, and then immediately walked over to where he had sat, and wiped his seat with a sterile cloth and tongs, and then deposited the cloth inside the jar, labeled and sealed it. If the suspect's name came up later as being an active enemy, the Stasi would let a German Shepherd smell the cloth associated with him and he was hunted down. Our technologies are far more sophisticated today, and I have no doubt that the Dominionists would want to have a file on everyone they could possibly have one on. Frightening what they might come up with as to their techniques for interrogation and the like. But it is happening in Russia and China as we speak.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, English. Yes, the Bible is clear and unambiguous. Especially the NT, except for Revelation, which takes a lot of study, and still can be problematic

Uh-huh. Which is why we have several thousand different denominations of Christianity who all interpret the Bible differently.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here is your citation. For the denominations that have stated, essentially, from their Church headquarters, that they accept in totality evolution and all it';s implications, do this. Ask any member who is a committed Christian ( as far as you can tell) how life began, and how the huge variety of plants and animals came about. See how many of them respond by saying that non living chemicals randomly came together to create a simple organism, that over billions of years reproduced itself to became everything living today.

I have been asking these questions for a long time of Methodists, Episcopalians, non Missouri Synod Lutherans, and others.

Never got that answer. Some will say God used evolution, but when you explain in detail what that means, they are somewhat stunned. Most will respond in a manner that shows they are a creationist, maybe old earther, new earther, or a variation. Some will flat out tell you they disagree with the position of their denomination.

So no citation. Shocking.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Could be, I simply keep track of the news. Like the big police scandal for covering up muslim rapes and other crimes, or the sharia courts approved by the Home Office, or the uniformed sharia compliance officers in sections of London.

You forgot the thousands of Muslim "no go" zones all over Europe.

 

[shmogie]

So no citation. Shocking.

If there is no poll of Christians on the matter, what do you expect me to cite ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

here, according the census office, well over 80% identify as Christians.

Your statistics are out of date. The number was closer too 70% in 2014, and has been steadily falling since the nineties. From Pew at http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

"the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated - describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular" - has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%."​

The rate of decline seems to be accelerating. There was only a 10% decline between 1990 and 2008, 18 years ( source ). This was an almost 8% decline in 7 years. Christians will be a minority in America in about 20 years or less at this rate.

If there is no such 'person' involved, then there is no 'murder' either.

There is no murder involved because murder is deliberate, unlawful homicide. Abortion is legal.

If I am a Christian cake decorator, and a homosexual wants a cake with kitty's or tigers on it, I have an obligation to bake and decorate it. If he wants one that says happy wedding ! Rufus loves Bruce with two groom figures I will not do it. I will not be compelled to participate in any way in a act, service or rite that my faith tells me I cannot. That is my right. they can go somewhere else. You don't like it. Tough. The Constitution guarantees my right to freely practice my religion, and a right apply's everywhere at any time, I don't check it at the door when I open my shop.

Feel free to test that and discover what your rights really are. There seems to be a notion among the faithful in America now that religious sensibilities trump everything else. Many of the rest of us don't agree. If the Supreme Court finds agrees with you and finds in favor of the Masterpiece baker, Americans will be free to discriminate against one another however they choose by claiming religious belief. You might walk into a restaurant with a crucifix around your neck and denied service for that if it offends the religious sensibilities of the restauranteur.

Thanks for bringing the issue of the rise of Dominionism up. Intuitively, I knew this was the next step, as it follows logically from the doctrine, but was not aware it had taken hold to the degree that it has.

Yes, one should be aware of these people. They also go by the name Reconstructionists. What they are are Christian theocrats, and they most assuredly would bring inquisitions back if given the power:

Are they a real threat? I can't judge that. While the numbers that self-identify as Christian is declining as indicated above, they've already begun creeping into government in much larger numbers. Much of Trumps cabinet are very religious Christians (Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt), and they're doing exactly what you would expect them to be doing. DeVos (education) is weakening safeguards for LGBT students and reassigning public school dollars to voucher programs - code for religious schools, which is still a long ways from the following:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects - not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had​

This is the face of Christianity absent the tempering of secular humanism. This is what Islam looks like in the Middle East, which was deprived of the principles of humanism, which enshrined humanist principles in the colonies in the form of a new nation with a secular government and put an end to killing witches.

I've long said that I see no reason to believe that if it had been the other way around - Muslims tempered by a few centuries of humanist influence and Christians still living in theocratic or quasi-theocratic nations - that it would be the Christians throwing homosexuals off of towers and burning infidels alive in cages. Why should we think otherwise? The two religions aren't that different on paper. The differences are the cultures in which they are rendered. Didn't the Dominionist quoted above say essentially that - "how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians"? He wants to return to stoning.