|
|
Post by Mink on May 29, 2008 0:44:19 GMT -5
Eastern religion aspires to higher spirituality therefore not succumbing to human desire. They also believe in life after death, therefore, if one falls into the lower levels of humanity, they will pay for it later. Leave Buddha alone TNG  |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 29, 2008 1:27:57 GMT -5
Eastern religion aspires to higher spirituality therefore not succumbing to human desire. They also believe in life after death, therefore, if one falls into the lower levels of humanity, they will pay for it later. Leave Buddha alone TNG Fair game, Mink. Or, are you saying it is OK to bash Christianity but not eastern myth based religions? Kind of touchy, there, aren;t you? What happend to tolerance, diversity, and inclusivness? |
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on May 29, 2008 8:12:23 GMT -5
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Can we get back on topic. Enough of the religion bashing. This is starting to look like the PD forum about Immigration (which is pretty funny to read, actually).
I'm going to have to agree with subdjoe. Equal Protection Clause on this one... As far as the government should be concerned, it's all or nothing.
And even though the forefathers were born of the Judeo-Christian ethic. I've seen no language in the constitution that excludes or exalts Christianity. And for the right to interpret Christianity as the religion of the nation based on the wording of the Constitution and the historical context it was written is to make the same arguments the left makes in regards to interpreting that document.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 29, 2008 19:43:50 GMT -5
Eastern religion aspires to higher spirituality therefore not succumbing to human desire. They also believe in life after death, therefore, if one falls into the lower levels of humanity, they will pay for it later. Leave Buddha alone TNG "higher spirituality" eh? You might want to take a gander at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasmand also www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7103.aspdo some homework rather than just going with emotions. Your arguments will be stronger. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 30, 2008 0:24:27 GMT -5
Eastern religion aspires to higher spirituality therefore not succumbing to human desire. They also believe in life after death, therefore, if one falls into the lower levels of humanity, they will pay for it later. Leave Buddha alone TNG "higher spirituality" eh? You might want to take a gander at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasmand also www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7103.aspdo some homework rather than just going with emotions. Your arguments will be stronger. Thank you for sharing another religious view Subdjoe. I never heard of hesychasm. Although there are similarities with the Eastern ways of reaching a high spiritual level, I didn't see where they believe in reincarnation.....maybe i missed it. Your other link didn't work. FYI~ Added: I wasn't comparing Western v.s. Eastern religion. I think most religions were originated to reach out to a higher being. I was just defended Buddha  |
|
|
|
Post by heckheckle on May 30, 2008 0:44:16 GMT -5
Hi Mink... I wrote a reply to you about your "Grounding" your Dad, but as happens often with me, I punched the wrong button and lost it all. No damage. I just moved over here and found you.
I see the "Picky People" are here. I have been Chastised for not writing so someone could understand me. Wait until I start writing about "Heckheckles Bridge", Whoo-eee, and wait
until I break out my "Tinfoil Hat". Another Whoo-eee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 30, 2008 0:51:25 GMT -5
Way to go heckheckle!!! Don't worry about these guys. They really love a difference of opinion ;D
BTW, what do you think about this gay marriage issue? Not that I want to judge them but I really don't think we need to vote on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by heckheckle on May 30, 2008 1:22:48 GMT -5
I don't see where there is any discrimination at all. The so called gay population has the same civil rights as the normal people. To exert those exact same rights, all they have to do is marry
someone of the opposite sex. Voila! Exact same Civil Rights.
Question: Will the Supreme Court mandate deviant sex? Seems to me thats what this is
all about... There will be no end to the Law Suits. Will same sex pairs be able to just walk away from each other? Divorce? Kids? Oh, you can see what I mean. It seems to me that
the Supreme Court is trying to "Make" Law.
I just had to Edit this to ask, What about Adultery? Cheating?
|
|
|
|
Post by heckheckle on May 30, 2008 1:57:13 GMT -5
I remember the Rose Bird Recall. I hope someone is working on this Gang of.......
I voted for the Recall of Rose Bird and her gang.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 1, 2008 19:54:57 GMT -5
I agree, homosexuality is deviant sex. They are only looking out for the here and now......what about the future of humanity?
They are going so far as to change sex, like the first pregnant male who was born female. How will they raise their son or daughter and explain their own childhoods?
I think they only want equal rights so they can provide healthcare for their mates. I don't understand why the courts want ot need to get involved in this one at all.
As for Rose Bird. I have to admit, I wasn't paying attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 2, 2008 14:41:36 GMT -5
Heckheckle sez...
Heck, you shouldn't have any problem with that. After all, what is Roe v. Wade if not the Supreme Court "making" law? When was Roe v. Wade ever debated in a legislature?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 2, 2008 14:55:38 GMT -5
The government has every right to regulate marriage. Now that I've poked my fingers in everyone's eye, let me back that up: - The regulation of marriage by the state was a law that was openly debated in the legislature and enacted as the will of the people.
- The government has an interest in regulating marriages for public health purposes (diseases and genetics) and for tax purposes. Again, this was something that was openly debated in the legislature and enacted as the will of the people.
- Gay marriages were excluded in California because a majority of the voters in California felt that way. Unfortunately, the authors of that ballot proposition did not try to create an alternate path for gays.
How about this as a solution: heterosexuals get married, and gays enter into civil unions? The civil union will carry with it the same tax status, and will give partners the same status when it comes to medical, death and insurance decisions. Another big issue that comes up for gays, and this was pointed out to me by my brother, who is gay, is that gay marriages imply gay divorces. Won't that be interesting? |
|
