Religion trumping freedom

[Taem]

Article Link: HERE

Richard Mourdock rape remarks prompt calls for Romney to act
Romney under pressure to distance himself from Senate hopeful, who received endorsement from Romney days before

Adam Gabbatt
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 October 2012 11.35 EDT

Mitt Romney is under pressure to publicly distance himself from a GOP Senate candidate who has claimed that pregnancies from rape are "something that God intended to happen".

Republican Richard Mourdock, running for the US Senate in Indiana, made the comments during a debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly and others on Tuesday.

Mitt Romney had endorsed Mourdock in a television advert just two days earlier, making the comments particularly embarrassing.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the Associated Press that Romney "disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views". Romney is opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is at risk.

But Romney is yet to comment on Mourdock's remarks, and his campaign has not said whether Romney's advert endorsing Mourdock's Senate bid will be pulled.

The Republican candidate for governor in Indiana, Mike Pence, has said he "strongly disagree[s]" with Mourdock and has urged him to apologise.

"This fall, I'm supporting Richard Mourdock for Senate," Romney says in the video advert supporting Mourdock, which was published to Mourdock's YouTube channel on Sunday.

"As senator, Richard will be the 51st vote to repeal and replace government run healthcare. Richard will help stop the liberal Reid-Pelosi agenda. There's so much at stake. I hope you'll join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for US senate."

The advert is "approved by" Mourdock, meaning it may be down to his campaign, rather than Romney's, as to whether the spot is taken down.

Romney was pro-choice as governor of Massachusetts, but is now pro-life except in certain cases. Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is opposed to abortion in all cases, with no exceptions.

Mourdock is not the first Republican to find himself in hot water over abortion beliefs. In August Todd Akin, Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, said that pregnancy as a result of "legitimate rape" is rare as "the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down".

Just last week Republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois told reporters "you can't find one instance" where it has been necessary to perform an abortion due to the risk to the mother's life due to medical advances. Medical experts note that there are some cases where the only option in the case of complications sustained during pregnancy is to abort the foetus.

The Indianapolis Star reported that after the debate, Donnelly, the Democratic senate candidate, "shook his head over" Mourdock's comments. "I don't know any God who would ever intend something like that," Donnelly reportedly said.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic national committee, said Mourdock's comments were "outrageous and demeaning to women" and called for Romney to pull the Mourdock advert.

I especially love this quote from a reader:

They should all have a word with each other and come up with an official party line. I'm thinking:

"You can't be raped or get pregnant from rape, but if you are, and if you, do it's your own fault and god wanted it to happen anyway so shut up and just keep having babies and stop questioning everything"

Why is it that Republicans are the ones coming up with this idiotic crap? I never thought being conservative meant being mentally handicapped also, but it seems times have changed. Now when I see a candidate with "conservative" Republican on their card, I immediately stereo type, and I know that's wrong, but I can't help it. WTF is wrong with these people?

Regarding the topic title, it's clear. This issue is not so-much Republican or conservative, but a great divide amongst proven scientific logic, and what the bible says. This isn't just a faulty interpretation of what the bible says, these people aren't all crazy believe it or not. They have "faith" in what the actual literature of the bible says on these topics - which is wrong! No leader who is this retarded should be in office. Religion and state MUST be separated! Given enough time and enough believers, these "leaders" will change our freedoms to a state similar to how the Taliban rule; there is no other way thinking like this can lead - that much is apparent! How far are you willing to go for change?

[DeeBye]

The "it's God's plan" argument is ridiculous.

[NuurAbSaal]

The "it's God's plan" argument is ridiculous.

I have no clue how to even start communicating, much less debating with people of such ridiculous opinions. Let's hope they get raptured away sooner than later.

take care
Tarabulus

[shoju]

Well, I knew this was going to be a hot button topic, when my a pastor friend of mine said "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" We met over lunch today, and talked about this the entire time.

While I understand that the Lounge is a more "secular" place, , The following is why this man's logic, even in a "Christian" position, doesn't hold water. (An abridged version of the points that he brought up over lunch.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To believe that Rape, or that Pregnancy from Rape, is "God's Will" is to deny the existence of the Devil, and (the devil's) influence in the world in which we live. To believe that an atrocity of this magnitude could happen to someone is "God's Will" implies that God is in fact not the loving, merciful God that the bible (specifically the New Testament) teaches. To believe that "God's Will" can be found in this, is misguided, and does a disservice to the followers of God.

Part of the problem with this, is that people believe that God tests them. That he actively "Job's" people (Job, Old Testament Story). As we have seen throughout history, It is preposterous to think that all of the horrors in our world have been committed solely because God is "testing" someone. Sometimes, Evil exists. It isn't pretty, it isn't right. It isn't fair. But, if you are a believer, then you believe that Sin was introduced to the world through the Original Sin, and that Sin, is an extension of temptation from the Devil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I'm appalled at the sound bites that have been leaked by the Republican Party this year. Couple this, with a "Tea Party" president saying that they think the country would be better off if women didn't vote because of how "Vindictive" they are, LINK

The Republican Party was NOT founded to be the Religious Arm of American Politics. It was founded on a platform of less government in your life. Like I've said before, there are plenty of things that they (originally) stand for, that I myself would agree with. (Gun Laws being the biggest and easiest to cite)

THe problem is, somewhere along the way, the Religious portion of America's population latched on to something. If I had to hazard a guess, I would think that it was Roe V Wade, but I was born in 1979, and I just don't care enough about the history of American Politics to dig and find what it is.

But, throughout my lifetime, I have seen the Religious Section of America's Population grow more and more intertwined with the Republican Party. Even though there are some obvious fallacies in that "Marriage". I don't understand it, and it is a sad state of affairs.

[kandrathe]

..."God's Will" is to deny the existence of the Devil, ...

The discussion you'd get here will be to describe it all as mumbo jumbo. I don't think human suffering is as simple as testing akin to Job. If we return to the story of Corrie Ten Boom, I mentioned earlier, she eventually decided that the barracks infestation of lice was a blessing, in that it kept the guards from wanting to be in proximity of the prisoners and afforded them some freedom. Sometimes we don't see everything, and I'd say especially in those things that are particularly horrific. To me they are more examples of the fallen-ness of humanity.

In the Abrahamic religions, evil(sin) exists in the world as expressions of free-will in opposition to God. Without the possibility of evil, there can not be free will, or freely given love. We'd be relegated to robotic devotion. The divine permission for the existence of evil, or badness, or even death is the hardest part for even many theists to understand.

Personally, I'm appalled ...

Mississippi Tea party bigot says something stupid, news at 11.

The problem is, somewhere along the way, the Religious portion of America's population latched on to something.

They took all the Democratic party rejects. Once upon a time, there used to be conservative Democrats.

Regarding the topic title, it's clear.

Unless Roman Polanski does it, then according to Hollywood types it's not "Rape Rape".

Religion and state MUST be separated!

So this is about access to abortion? Isn't that also a question (at least on one side) of life or death?

Just to be clear... The Bible does not say that rape is Gods plan -- it's as distorted as the wacko Phelps family interpretation that God hates America for loving gays.

[FireIceTalon]

This is nothing new, reactionaries have ALWAYS been divorced from history and reality. It's just that nowadays, they are much more blatant and unapologetic about it. That being said, the GOP has moved so far to the right to the point that they are bordering on fascism, if they are not there already. Even before I became a communist I knew these guys were a bunch of fucking sociopathic crackpots. I think we should be thankful that they are finally being up front and honest with us about how they really feel. Because now they have no excuses.

Religion is the perfect tool for conservatives to center their ideology around, because all religions are intrinsically authoritarian and reactionary, so they go hand in hand with conservative agenda. The goal of conservatives (especially social conservatives) is not less government, it is MORE government, because they want to protect the interests of those who are privileged and rule society at the expense of those who are ruled. And to do that, requires bigger, not smaller, government. All one has to do is look at our history - whenever there were no nation states or governments, there were no classes either (which is the majority of time since the dawn of our species). These things only formed when class society was formed - which one came first is a matter of debate, but it doesn't matter. This is why I don't understand why all the CEO's and Wall Street hate Obama so much, he has done WONDERS to protect their interests. They are doing better than ever, while everyone else is struggling to make ends meet, and the oligarchs are still complaining.

Don't be fooled, the Democrats are really no better. They just want to put a human face on a volatile system.

[FoxBat]

To believe that Rape, or that Pregnancy from Rape, is "God's Will" is to deny the existence of the Devil, and (the devil's) influence in the world in which we live. To believe that an atrocity of this magnitude could happen to someone is "God's Will" implies that God is in fact not the loving, merciful God that the bible (specifically the New Testament) teaches. To believe that "God's Will" can be found in this, is misguided, and does a disservice to the followers of God.

From a Christian perspective, I think it's highly debatable whether new human life is itself an atrocity under any circumstances. Or in other words, that you can't rule out the possibility of good results from evil acts. Not that it justifies said acts (i.e. makes them not sinful), but at the same time you can't necessarily condemn all consequences of said acts.

For those who equate abortion with murder and yet allow exceptions for rape/incest, it makes me wonder that what is really at stake here is not so much the question of human life, but rather how sexual responsibility is doled out. (I.E. pregnancy is a women's fault unless she is forced, and avoiding abortion is nothing more than "taking responsibility.") Or on the other hand considering the incest angle, maybe it's really just about what kinds of human beings are fit to exist or not. In that case those looking to abort disabled pregnancies might not be so different after all.

[FireIceTalon]

Actually, you can condemn them. And many including myself, will do so, especially in the case of something such a rape.

There is no such thing as "sexual responsibility", sex life is entirely the self-determination of each individual and should never be a concern or business of the State or a church - though of course they will be so long as States and churches exist, unfortunately. No other person, has a right, ever, to sexually force themselves on another, nor do they have the right to tell another person what to do with their body. A woman has a right to choice, and does so ON DEMAND and WITHOUT apology.

Religious conservatives are against abortion because they want more people (women in particular) to have control over, continue the population of unemployed wage slaves, and then send them off to die in their capitalist/imperialist wars; when they are old enough. For as much as the Christian right hates the Taliban, they sure are almost as reactionary as those they profess to hate.

[eppie]

Normally we laugh about these kind of people. When they bother us too much (like al qaeda) we can start a war, but most of the time we let the moron alone.
So the biggest issue in this case is that this happens in (one of) the worlds super power.
Like I have said here many times, any midwest inbread freak who has never stepped a foot outside of his own state has more to say about what happens in europe (and the world) than an average european voter....and that is bad.

As FIT correctly says, there is not much difference between such people and for example Talibans in Afghanistan.

All those reli-boys want to have is power and if they can't get it over their fellow men, they damn well make sure they will have it over their women.

[NuurAbSaal]

As FIT correctly says, there is not much difference between such people and for example Talibans in Afghanistan.

Bullshit. A thousand times bullshit. These kind of gross and ridiculous exaggerations are worthy of religious zealots and idiots like FIT. If you think about it for a few seconds I think you can spot a few differences such as one of the two not shooting little girls in the head if they happen to disagree with their point of view on education for girls.

Sorry if I come of as rude, but that just pissed me off.

take care
Tarabulus

[eppie]

As FIT correctly says, there is not much difference between such people and for example Talibans in Afghanistan.

Bullshit. A thousand times bullshit. These kind of gross and ridiculous exaggerations are worthy of religious zealots and idiots like FIT. If you think about it for a few seconds I think you can spot a few differences such as one of the two not shooting little girls in the head if they happen to disagree with their point of view on education for girls.

Sorry if I come of as rude, but that just pissed me off.

take care
Tarabulus

The reason the taliban do those things is because they can; the country they live in is lawless and they make up the rules. In the US luckily there is at least some order and justice, but if there wasn't these christian extremists would do exactly the same.
It is easy in your midwestern US villa to say you are morally superior because you don't exactly do what some taliban is doing, but to me it is '(also) the thought that counts'.

In that sense someone who lives in a modern and developed country like the US and thinks and says these kind of things is worse than a Taliban.

And a few side notes:
-not all taliban have shot girls in the head
-sending unmanned drone bombers to bomb weddings because you think there might be someone present with links to a terrorist organisation doesn't even make you morally superior.

So please reconsider your 'being pissed off'.

[NuurAbSaal]

In the US luckily there is at least some order and justice, but if there wasn't these christian extremists would do exactly the same.

In your opinion. Then again, all manner of people might do all manner of things if you take away their established society and replace it with violent anarchy and a rule-by-force crazy militia. Making up imaginary scenarios does not help your standpoint.

but to me it is '(also) the thought that counts'.

In that sense someone who lives in a modern and developed country like the US and thinks and says these kind of things is worse than a Taliban.

So, thinking of a crime is a crime, basically? Maybe I'd like to violently pummel religion out of crazy people, but I don't, since it's illegal where I come from. Makes me worse than somebody who does it, because he doesn't have to fear consequences? Not following you. Someone thinking about violent acts against non-believers (which, again, you just assume ultraconservatives in the US do) is worse than actually committing these acts. Seriously?

And a few side notes:
-not all taliban have shot girls in the head

No idea how this is relevant.

-sending unmanned drone bombers to bomb weddings because you think there might be someone present with links to a terrorist organisation doesn't even make you morally superior.

No idea how this is relevant. Unless you thought I was American and wanted to get back at me with that somehow.

So please reconsider your 'being pissed off'.

Please reconsider your stance on this.

take care
Tarabulus

[eppie]

So, thinking of a crime is a crime, basically? Maybe I'd like to violently pummel religion out of crazy people, but I don't, since it's illegal where I come from. Makes me worse than somebody who does it, because he doesn't have to fear consequences? Not following you. Someone thinking about violent acts against non-believers (which, again, you just assume ultraconservatives in the US do) is worse than actually committing these acts. Seriously?

First of all I am not advocating that this republican needs to go to jail, because indeed he didn't commit a crime.

This is all about what consequences certain action or statements have and about if you can by smart governing reduce the amount of unwanted behaviour.
exemple:::
Take the crime and poverty connection. You know that when someone grows up in a ghetto he is far more likely to become a violent criminal compared to someone who grows up in a rich suburb. Do I say that when someone from the ghetto commits a crime he should not be charged because it is not his fault? No of course I don't say that, but I do say that working on improving life quality in ghetto's will lower crime rates.
end exemple:::

So to me the actions of this indiana republican are indeed comparable to the daily behaviour of Taliban members. Especially their mental state. And that is hwy I made the remark.....if your mental state is bordering that of someone living in Afghanistan, to me that is not a positive thing. And for that reason I think I can and I want to make the comparison.
I realize that you are thinking differently about this and don't want to make that extrapolation (even though you are basically saying that all inhabitants of a large part of Afghistan are scum of the eart and all US citizens are fantastic (yes this is hugely overdone from my side but you get the point) ).


So to summarize....I do think a Taliban that abuses a women should go to jail and a US parlementarian that says rape is gods will should not BUT I am also smart enough to know that there is a huge social difference. And so speaking ethically.....I find that this guy is just as bad. I see good and bad not based on where somebody is from but in a much more personal way.

[shoju]

In the Abrahamic religions, evil(sin) exists in the world as expressions of free-will in opposition to God. Without the possibility of evil, there can not be free will, or freely given love. We'd be relegated to robotic devotion. The divine permission for the existence of evil, or badness, or even death is the hardest part for even many theists to understand.

That sort of runs hand in hand with what I'm saying.

Mississippi Tea party bigot says something stupid, news at 11.

I just picked another doozy from the days news cycle, would you like me to go back and mention the MIssouri Republican's remarks on Rape and Abortion?

Or another idiot republican and abortion and rape?
Or Mitt Romney's comments about almost half of America feeling that they are victims who rely on the government?
Or Mitt Romney's taped comments coaxing employers to influence the way their employees vote?
Or the Republican Party in Maine attempting character assassination because the Democratic Candidate played WoW as recently as 2010?

I can come up with all kinds of fantastic moments this Election Cycle where people have said the dumbest shit, without letting the words pass through a filter in their brain to realize that what they are about to say should probably not be said

They took all the Democratic party rejects. Once upon a time, there used to be conservative Democrats.

That's.... not even remotely going to explain what I'm saying. There are still conservative Democrats, and there are still liberal Republicans. They are just called Moderates now, and since we Moderates don't make as much noise as those on the far sides of the aisle, we are normally ignored.

But that's not the point. That doesn't explain why, somewhere along the way, the Republican Party turned away from it's core platform to embrace ideologies that stand directly in contrast to the original party's founding beliefs, and why People of Faith (specifically those of Abrahamic Faith) have decided that the Conservative views of the Republican Party on Social Welfare are ok, despite their "Holy Word of God" (the Bible) telling them that they should care and love for all, and they should help those in need.

So do me a favor, and don't try to make it some partisan party BS out of it. If the Republican Party were still operating solely based on it's platform, and not off of Religious standings, they wouldn't be telling you (as a party) that they are against LGBT rights (including Marriage), and they wouldn't be making such noise about Abortion, since the Supreme Court ruled it Legal.

The Republican Party's foundation lies in LESS Government in your life, but when it comes to what a woman can and can't do with her reproductive rights, and whether or not two people who love each other can be joined in marriage, they want the government right up your ass about it. It's a contradiction that finds itself rooted in exactly what I'm talking about. The republican party has been overtaken by a very loud group of People who are making decisions based on faith.

So this is about access to abortion? Isn't that also a question (at least on one side) of life or death?

For me, this is about the Supreme Court ruling that Women have the right to choose. That, IMO, is the end of the discussion. My personal beliefs about the topic are my personal beliefs about the topic. You were given the right, and it's not mine to be take away.

Just to be clear... The Bible does not say that rape is Gods plan -- it's as distorted as the wacko Phelps family interpretation that God hates America for loving gays.

Bolded for Truth

From a Christian perspective, I think it's highly debatable whether new human life is itself an atrocity under any circumstances. Or in other words, that you can't rule out the possibility of good results from evil acts. Not that it justifies said acts (i.e. makes them not sinful), but at the same time you can't necessarily condemn all consequences of said acts.

For those who equate abortion with murder and yet allow exceptions for rape/incest, it makes me wonder that what is really at stake here is not so much the question of human life, but rather how sexual responsibility is doled out. (I.E. pregnancy is a women's fault unless she is forced, and avoiding abortion is nothing more than "taking responsibility.") Or on the other hand considering the incest angle, maybe it's really just about what kinds of human beings are fit to exist or not. In that case those looking to abort disabled pregnancies might not be so different after all.

And I'm saying that since the Supreme Court of the United States of America, that decision rests solely on the woman who is pregnant, and anyone that she decides to involve in the decision.

It's not my choice. Or Kandrathe's Choice. Or your Choice. It is their choice.

For me, it isn't a religious issue at all. It's a political issue, of freedoms and personal choice. The Bible says that God gave man Free Will. The United States of America says that she has the right to choose. Case Closed.

Maybe, it's because I have been a part of that decision making process. Maybe because I had to sit down, and think about the possibility that if my wife had carried that pregnancy to term, I was going to be faced with the very real possibility that IF my wife made it to term, I would be faced with not bringing home my wife and child.

We decided that the abortion was the right thing to do. It was one of the hardest decisions I have ever been a part of. In the end, we ended up going on to have 2 beautiful children together, and part of me still looks back on that first time and wonders "what if". But then part of me also remembers that I might not even have my wife and 2 children right now.

That wasn't someone else's decision to make. That was ours. It had nothing to do with sexual responsibility. It had nothing to do with what kind of human beings are fit to exist. It had everything to do with the choice that we had to make. And for someone to think that somehow, that decision was theirs to decide for us, is probably not something they would ever want to say to my face.

It's why I'm Pro Choice. I would rather we live in a world where abortions never happened. But sometimes, they happen. And sometimes, it's necessary. And as long as SCOTUS has determined that there is the right to choose, it isn't a decision that anyone but the people immediately involved should even think they have the right to speak about.

I understand the politicians are there to change things. I understand that it's a debate point, and last Presidential Election Cycle, the talk was tolerable. This cycle, it's nauseating.

[NuurAbSaal]

So, thinking of a crime is a crime, basically? Maybe I'd like to violently pummel religion out of crazy people, but I don't, since it's illegal where I come from. Makes me worse than somebody who does it, because he doesn't have to fear consequences? Not following you. Someone thinking about violent acts against non-believers (which, again, you just assume ultraconservatives in the US do) is worse than actually committing these acts. Seriously?

First of all I am not advocating that this republican needs to go to jail, because indeed he didn't commit a crime.

This is all about what consequences certain action or statements have and about if you can by smart governing reduce the amount of unwanted behaviour.
exemple:::
Take the crime and poverty connection. You know that when someone grows up in a ghetto he is far more likely to become a violent criminal compared to someone who grows up in a rich suburb. Do I say that when someone from the ghetto commits a crime he should not be charged because it is not his fault? No of course I don't say that, but I do say that working on improving life quality in ghetto's will lower crime rates.
end exemple:::

So to me the actions of this indiana republican are indeed comparable to the daily behaviour of Taliban members. Especially their mental state. And that is hwy I made the remark.....if your mental state is bordering that of someone living in Afghanistan, to me that is not a positive thing. And for that reason I think I can and I want to make the comparison.
I realize that you are thinking differently about this and don't want to make that extrapolation (even though you are basically saying that all inhabitants of a large part of Afghistan are scum of the eart and all US citizens are fantastic (yes this is hugely overdone from my side but you get the point) ).


So to summarize....I do think a Taliban that abuses a women should go to jail and a US parlementarian that says rape is gods will should not BUT I am also smart enough to know that there is a huge social difference. And so speaking ethically.....I find that this guy is just as bad. I see good and bad not based on where somebody is from but in a much more personal way.

I'll try to wrap this up for us:

You think that religious nut jobs are bad news. You think that people in so called "first world" nations especially should know better, given the history of their countries and societies (gross oversimplification).

I agree.

So there. Ignoring minor issues of wording I think we can close this argument .

take care
Tarabulus

[FireIceTalon]

As FIT correctly says, there is not much difference between such people and for example Talibans in Afghanistan.

Bullshit. A thousand times bullshit. These kind of gross and ridiculous exaggerations are worthy of religious zealots and idiots like FIT. If you think about it for a few seconds I think you can spot a few differences such as one of the two not shooting little girls in the head if they happen to disagree with their point of view on education for girls.

Sorry if I come of as rude, but that just pissed me off.

take care
Tarabulus

These assholes want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade so they can arrest women if they get an abortion, and some of them even think that rape is ok - this is only a (very) small step above what the Taliban does and thinks. In both cases women's rights are suppressed and neither culture has any respect for them - they are thought of as less than human. The only difference is that the Talban has no laws to control their power, but that is beside the point, dipshit. The point is this: the mentality of both is the same - women are objectified and to serve the role as nothing more than baby making machines anytime a man feels like sticking his dick in one, in the eyes of both groups. Perhaps you should learn a thing or two about American politics first before calling anyone else an idiot. Both the Taliban and the christian right are reactionary scum, you don't see the connection, and yet somehow I'm the idiot - LOL, get lost kiddo.

And eppie, I agree about the 'thought counts'.....if these religious right-wing chauvinistic pigs could have it their way, women would be slaves with no rights to pursue their dreams, education, or even have any dignity or livelihood, much less actually have control of their own bodies. These people are sick, and I wish both them and the Taliban would all go die in a fire, and rid us of their savagery and idiocy. I have nothing but contempt for them.

[Taem]

So, thinking of a crime is a crime, basically? Maybe I'd like to violently pummel religion out of crazy people, but I don't, since it's illegal where I come from. Makes me worse than somebody who does it, because he doesn't have to fear consequences? Not following you. Someone thinking about violent acts against non-believers (which, again, you just assume ultraconservatives in the US do) is worse than actually committing these acts. Seriously?

First of all I am not advocating that this republican needs to go to jail, because indeed he didn't commit a crime.

This is all about what consequences certain action or statements have and about if you can by smart governing reduce the amount of unwanted behaviour.
exemple:::
Take the crime and poverty connection. You know that when someone grows up in a ghetto he is far more likely to become a violent criminal compared to someone who grows up in a rich suburb. Do I say that when someone from the ghetto commits a crime he should not be charged because it is not his fault? No of course I don't say that, but I do say that working on improving life quality in ghetto's will lower crime rates.
end exemple:::

So to me the actions of this indiana republican are indeed comparable to the daily behaviour of Taliban members. Especially their mental state. And that is hwy I made the remark.....if your mental state is bordering that of someone living in Afghanistan, to me that is not a positive thing. And for that reason I think I can and I want to make the comparison.
I realize that you are thinking differently about this and don't want to make that extrapolation (even though you are basically saying that all inhabitants of a large part of Afghistan are scum of the eart and all US citizens are fantastic (yes this is hugely overdone from my side but you get the point) ).


So to summarize....I do think a Taliban that abuses a women should go to jail and a US parlementarian that says rape is gods will should not BUT I am also smart enough to know that there is a huge social difference. And so speaking ethically.....I find that this guy is just as bad. I see good and bad not based on where somebody is from but in a much more personal way.

I'll try to wrap this up for us:

You think that religious nut jobs are bad news. You think that people in so called "first world" nations especially should know better, given the history of their countries and societies (gross oversimplification).

I agree.

So there. Ignoring minor issues of wording I think we can close this argument .

take care
Tarabulus

Is the sky blue or pink? I guess that's a matter of perspective based on if your blue is the same blue I see why my eyes or not.

In this case, I think your missing the big picture, one I laid out in my first post and Eppie picked up on: Given enough room, THIS THINKING CAN ONLY LEAD TO ONE OUTCOME... Which naturally leads to, people like THAT shouldn't be in office in the first place. But back to "that" OUTCOME; yes if these free-religious thinkers who are "literal" bible believers (you know, how in Revelations after God returns, we are all suppose to sacrifice animals daily and shit like that; such a wonderful future... didn't you guys read your bible?) have their way, then we would have a Taliban type world. I'll reiterate from my first post: "This is obvious!" So Eppies comparison of religious nut-jobs calling themselves conservative Republicans doing god's will is no less disturbing or different then the Taliban enforcing their god's will. Same shit, different smell.

[eppie]

So there. Ignoring minor issues of wording I think we can close this argument .

take care
Tarabulus

Yes I think so too. These are really the issues with online discussions....meeting face to face would be a lot easier.

[kandrathe]

In this case, I think your missing the big picture, one I laid out in my first post and Eppie picked up on: Given enough room, THIS THINKING CAN ONLY LEAD TO ONE OUTCOME...

The big picture is that when power is held by the government, we become a totalitarian fascist system. The question is whether that fascism resembles the Republican type of militant theocracy, or the Democrats progressive type of militant secular socialism. This is a system where what you believe matters little, because you've lost your individual liberties. Should you dare speak out against the status quo, that will get you a prison term. For example, protesters are being arrested in Wisconsin for holding signs, and singing. One persons's misguided views on rape myths are unsettling, but actual attacks on freedom, they outrage me.

[Taem]

One persons's misguided views on rape myths are unsettling, but actual attacks on freedom, they outrage me.

Then we are all in agreement. And NuurAbSaal was correct in his wrap-up comment also; my comment to him was unnecessary, even though it "felt" justified at the time .