TexasCHLforum.com

smoothoperator wrote: Since you asked, I think requiring an observant Jew or Muslim to serve pork would be more like requiring you to perform an abortion. Direct involvement in the act.

Using your tax dollars to pay for abortions is more like using an observant Jew's or Muslim's tax dollars to pay for a school lunch hot dog containing pork, or food stamps that can be used to buy bacon. Or using a pacifist's tax dollars to fund the military.

Yes, because forcing catholic hospitals and catholic employers to give out contraception or close their doors is exactly the same as tax payer funded baloney sandwiches. They are forcing them to "participate."

It does sound rather humorous.....but then I find twitter ridiculous....I guess I am old fashioned and think one should update posts on Facebook instead!

I think thread wandering is all part of an online community. On the popes twitter.....I a, not catholic, but I think it is an excellent way to communicate with the next generation.

Kythas wrote:

pbwalker wrote:So a mother goes in for a c-section, gives birth, and wants her tubes tied needs to get sewn back up, and sent somewhere else to have it done...I don't think that's right. Religion doesn't belong in medicine.

Then why not go to that "someplace else" the first time? If you know you want a tubal ligation, then go to a hospital that will perform it when you have your c-section. People ARE still allowed to shop around in this country to find the place of business which can supply all their needs.

You're tossing out an intellectually dishonest argument here.

+1

Because they believe that it is wrong to make oneself infertile without serious life threatening medical cause.


Is there a shortage of places to get tubal ligations? Why force people to do things they think are wrong? If you want your tubes tied go to a difference hospital. Freedom of religion does not begin and end at the church house.

Oldgringo wrote:
Super! Why do y'all want to impose your mores, beliefs and judgements on others?

Live and let live, ours is not to judge. God will sort 'em out, eh?

Well in the case of abotrion I think a mother that chooses abortion is imposing her beliefs on a child that has no defense against the doctors extraction. Those children do not have a voice to argue back that they are alive and would prefer not to be murdered.

on the issue of gay marriage y'all want the govt out of the bedroom......I say certainly, but they have to get all the way out!

No sex education in gov't schools. No discussion of what constitutes a family. Leave that to the parents. No support for contraception or abortion, after all that is between a woman and her doctor and none of the govts business.

Everyone gets the same tax credit (or we can simplify the tax code). When a suspect is taken into custody he/she must designate the intimacy partner that may not be made to testify against them and that person must concur.

If we are truely going to say govt needs to be out of the bedroom and out of people's intimacy choices then the divorce from the gov't must be complete and final. Out out out the govt must go out of the bedroom entirely.

Somehow, I don't think that is what the gay rights movement wants. It seems to me that they want to gov't to be more involved forcing me to pay for their indoctrination of children from young ages. Forcing people to not only tolerate but give their hearty approval to whatever they say or it is "hate speech". It seems to me that they don't want people to leave them alone in their bedroom, rather that they want their bedroom to be in my living room and our school rooms. That to me is not less govt in marriage and intimacy that is more and coercive gov't at that.

Edited for a typing error.

Pretty good explanation

talltex wrote:
Therein lies the fundamental difference between us. I don't believe that I have the right to tell a Jewish deli or anyone else what they may or may not do as long as it is not illegal and doesn't infringe on my rights or safety. I don't believe the government should have the right to do so either. I understand your position and support your right to feel that way and I'm certainly not trying to change your mind. Your opposition is based on your own religious beliefs and you obviously feel very strongly about them. However, our government was founded on the concept of religious freedom and one of the basic tenents was that the government should not tell people how to think and what to believe, and for that reason I think they should leave religious issues up to the individual.

You missed my point about the Jewish deli......An orthodox Jew believes it is wrong to eat pork. Would you be ok with a law requiring all Deli's including Jewish Deli's serve ham, no matter what they wanted?

They are forcing by law religious people who believe that abortion is a sin to participate in it financially. How is that different than forcing a Jew to serve pork?

talltex wrote:

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.[

There is a vast difference between funding something you disagree and don't like with and being forced to fund something you find so very reprehensible that those who engage in it and propagate its existence are endangering their very souls.

Would you make a Jewish deli serve ham?

talltex wrote:
I too believe that the main issue in the election was economics and the issue of entitlements, and as you say there is no easy fix, because the primary growth in our population over the last 10 years is younger people from backgrounds that view those programs as just that..."entitlements". However, you state that while you "don't believe this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage" you also say that you will NOT vote for a candidate who doesn't SUPPORT your views on those very issues...period. I believe there are others right there in that middle ground that feel strongly about single issues also...that might have preferred a sound fiscal policy, but they just don't think the government should be involved in legislating morality. Those votes might make a difference down the road...maybe not. I don't say you SHOULD violate your moral beliefs and not vote your conscience, but what if there had been a candidate that who fit your requirements in all other matters...you agreed with his economic stance, his position on the military, right to bear arms, fair and balanced foreign policies, trade balances, etc...BUT, he simply refused to take a stand on those social issues...said he didn't feel that he had the right to make those choices for others? Would you still refuse to vote that way...knowing the other choice was someone like Obama? There has to be some give and take in the political process...we can't all have it just the way we want it. I've already stated that I prefer to let people make their own choices, but I never considered not voting for Romney because of those issues.

If the political candidate is great in fiscal policy, but believes murdering the unborn is a-ok, and that my children are wards of the state from birth to death then he is not for me. I think it says something about a politicians character when they refuse to stand up for the smallest and the most vulnerable among us.

Like I said before I have to stand before a holy God one day. I will not do so having supported anyone who is ok with murdering children (which is what abortion is).

So for the socially libertarian on this thread the answer is for those of us that feel strongly on social issues (abortion/traditional marriage/ parental rights) should violate our conciseness in matters that are of the highest importance to us to get the fiscal situation we want.


Others may feel differently, but I think this stinks like cow patties. I will not violate my conscience for a pay off.

Legalized murder is still murder, and that is what I consider abortion to be. You vote as you see fit. If a candidate wants my vote he must not be willing to say murder is hunky dory if a person is less than convenient.



I will add I don't think this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage. I think it was that there are now more takers than makers. Mores the pity for us. No easy way to fix that.

Well if they did as you suggest and they say to the Conservative Christians go fly a kite....you are still not going to win. Because we WILL NOT vote for a person who thinks that killing children that are inconvenient is just fine and dandy.

I will not sell my soul to win an election. I fear God. End of Story.

I think we might survive another four years (maybe) but not another 40. The die has been cast. When the takers outnumber the makers a society is done. See to your families now.

It is done. The people have voted for bread and circuses (Obama phones and welfare). They (apparently) do not realize that the barbarian hordes are part of that deal too. I think the tipping point for our nation as a whole was tonight. Look to your locals and your own families now. Prepare for hard times that will come now. Bread, bullets, butter people.