More likely to vote for anyone but a Mormon

[Bill the Cat]

Let's take this point by point:

1. Abortion. I was raised as a Jew, and was taught that life begins at birth, not at conception.

Biology teaches otherwise.

True, I am now LDS, and my opposition to banning it puts me in contradiction with the church. That said, abortion was practiced thousands of years ago, yet there is no reference to it in scripture.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna, if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden.

© source where applicable

If it were wrong, don't you think that Jesus or Paul would have said something about it?

Not if the Torah and Mishna already generally forbade it.

That said, I personally am against it and did once talk my stepdaughter out of having one. But I think that's where that should be done-- NOT in the law, but in individual conversations if you happen to know someone who is contemplating it. And-- had she decided to have one anyway, then I would have made sure she had it in the best and safest facility available.

Safe for who? The unborn certainly is NOT safe. The law is for the protection of those who are innocent. Thus, since the victim can not speak for themselves as a concerned party, the law should. And from a general moral standpoint, God creates ALL life, and He should be the ONLY one who takes it away.

2. My sister is gay.

And as a Jew, you should know that it is sin according to God. You should love her, but not condone her sin.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that if she were in the hospital, I would have more visitation rights than her wife.

"wife" comment aside, a power of attorney would alleviate that.

Or that, if the ultimate decision had to be made I would be the one to authorize it instead of her wife (since our mom is in frail health and would be unable to.)

Power of Attorney and Living Wills would fix that too.

Granted, I would ask her wife what she wanted and follow her directives in that case, but the truth is, I shouldn't have to, and she shouldn't have to go through me to make her wishes known.

Attorneys would be able to take care of all of that...

3. All bigotry is wrong. Period.

Not really. I am bigotted against registered sex offenders trying to approach my children. I am bigotted against convicted embezzlers doing my taxes.

4. I used to be more conservative (at least to the point of being a moderate) but I quit having any faith in conservatives about 2002 when it became clear that they were pushing for an invasion of Iraq. Anybody who can justify starting a war against a country that has not attacked us, I have no faith in.

They attacked Kuwait in 1990. They constantly fired upon our planes in the no fly zones. They tortured and killed thousands upon thousands of their own citizens. You may not think that any of that is an issue, but I sure do.

The rest of the liberal agenda: Yes, I believe in taking care of poor and sick Americans before the need to blow things up, and before giving out more trillions in corporate welfare.

You over-simplify this. Those programs should be hand-ups, not hand-outs.

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Yeah, I know. How un-Christian of me to put paying for sick people to visit the doctor ahead of bombing people on the other side of the world.

So, do you hang out by the emergency room and offer to pay for everyone who enters, or do you simply expect everyone else to pay for all those illegal immigrants? Sorry, but feeding the poor and caring for the sick should be an individual's decision, not the Government.

And as far as the bombing thing, I guess you just turn a blind eye to the deaths of foreign citizens at the hands of their murderous governments? Lives don't matter to you unless they are able to be bribed to vote Democrat?

[roadwalker]

As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna, if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden.

Not how I was taught. And here is a link that backs up how I was taught about it:

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

That's one reason why it was forbidden to have a funeral for a stillborn child until very recently:

http://judaism.about.com/od/deathmou..._stillborn.htm

As for your diatribe about 'safe,' had I not been successful in persuading my daughter not to have an abortion, what would you suggest? Let her find anyone who would do it? No thanks. I love my daughter and would want her to have it done by the most qualified people available, just like any other medical procedure.

As far as my sister is concerned (and other gay people) I support equality under the law. Period. Not everything that is legal is something I do but that does not mean condoning discrimination. And incidentally, she has a living will but in some matters (visitation) that still would not give her wife equal access to what I have. That's plain wrong.

Not really. I am bigotted (sic) against registered sex offenders trying to approach my children. I am bigotted (sic) against convicted embezzlers doing my taxes.

Neither of those is bigotry. These people have done something that is a crime. That is different from discrimination against an entire class or category of people (be it against Christians, muslims, blacks, gays, women, the elderly, etc.) who simply are members of that group but have done nothing illegal, and it is simply part of who they are.

As for your warmongering, as I said, that's exactly what repelled me about conservatism (more than anything else, that was it.) People who live under a dictator can fight for their freedom (as the people in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and now Syria have done.) I'm OK with supporting them with food, medicine, pressure on their governments or possibly even with weapons, but that is completely different from invading a country to try and 'hand' democracy to people who may not even want it. Like you are so fond of saying about wealth, freedom is best appreciated if it is earned, not handed to them.

In any case, it is NOT the role of the U.S. to try and solve everyone else's problems. Yes, the world is full of evil people. We won't kill all of them, and in the process of trying we end up killing many others as 'collateral damage.' Case in point, Afghanistan. We seem to make a 'mistake' there at least once per month. And what there is worth American lives and money anyway? Heck, it is true that iron and copper mines are now operating in Afghanistan-- by the Chinese. So we are spending our treasury, and spilling the blood of our soldiers, and what little profit there is to be made in the country (and it is small) is being made by the Chinese. And, we are stuck in the middle of a tribal war between the Taliban (mostly supported by the Pashtuns) and a corrupt government (Karzai is descended from the Popalzai tribe, blood enemies of the Pashtuns.) In Iraq, we ended up trying to keep the peace in a sectarian war with tribal overtones. Sorry, but I'm sick of this sacrificing the lives of our young people trying to get people on the opposite sides of feuds that go back to the dawn of civilization to be nice to each other. Spend the money on the needs of our own citizens.

You over-simplify this. Those programs should be hand-ups, not hand-outs.

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Not at all. First, you seem stuck in the common excuse that people who don't have health insurance are just too lazy to get a job. In fact, if someone is completely destitute they are already covered by Medicaid. What the PPACA covers is mostly the working poor, who may work 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage and no benefits and are therefore uninsured. But they are not lazy. Further, if you assume that everyone who is unemployed is that way because they are too lazy to work, then you completely undercut Romney's whole rationale for running for President, inasfar as he is is saying that there are people who want jobs and can't find any. So which is it?

Bottom line is, I've seen this argument before. It's a nice cover for what I've learned is often the truth from conservatives: that they have theirs, and frankly wouldn't care if the uninsured (who they can easily rationalize as 'lazy' whether it's true or not) all dropped dead tomorrow. Heck, last year during a debate the Tea Party audience agreed with the idea that they should:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yva0VSN1_T4

So, do you hang out by the emergency room and offer to pay for everyone who enters, or do you simply expect everyone else to pay for all those illegal immigrants? Sorry, but feeding the poor and caring for the sick should be an individual's decision, not the Government.

Another typical right wing rationalization for not giving two cents about their fellow man. First, there are more than 30 million uninsured U.S. citizens in the U.S. So even if you say, fine, don't insure the illegal immigrants, the large majority of uninsured are your fellow citizens. Second, do you (or anyone) hang out at the door to the ER waiting to pay people's bills? Any individuals? Any churches? NO. Nobody does that! So since nobody does that, your whole argument that it should be up to 'individuals' is faulty. Either there is in reality no expectation that people will do this as individuals, or else we are all sinners for not doing it.

So in other words, I believe that paying taxes so that treatment for these people will be paid for is a worthwhile use of my tax dollars, again certainly more worthwhile than wars in places we have no business being.

And as far as the bombing thing, I guess you just turn a blind eye to the deaths of foreign citizens at the hands of their murderous governments? Lives don't matter to you unless they are able to be bribed to vote Democrat?

I think I already addressed that. Tyranny in Iraq, or Myanmar, or Iran, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or Congo, or China, or Cuba, or Sudan, or... (do you want to bomb them all?) is something that their own citizens should address first and foremost (just as the citizens of the former eastern bloc countries did.) I'm not adverse to helping them (especially if it is 'help' by means of empowering them to be able to go out and fight for their own freedom) but it seems we have too much suffering that we aren't addressing at home in the United States before we appoint ourselves to go out and save the world from itself.

[Bill the Cat]

Not how I was taught. And here is a link that backs up how I was taught about it:

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

From that link:

Abortion

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

That's one reason why it was forbidden to have a funeral for a stillborn child until very recently:

http://judaism.about.com/od/deathmou..._stillborn.htm

[/quote]

From the same site:

According to traditional Jewish Law, no shiva takes place for a baby who has not lived at least 30 days.

www.aish.com

And, while the matter is not free from controversy, there are rabbinic opinions that allow abortion when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the mother's health. But those narrow exceptions do not translate into some unlimited "mother's right" to "make her own reproductive choices" – the position Hadassah enthusiastically trumpets.
Rabbi Avi Shafran

© source where applicable

As for your diatribe about 'safe,' had I not been successful in persuading my daughter not to have an abortion, what would you suggest?

Convince her that the baby within her is a human being who deserves love and affection, not death by dismemberment.

Let her find anyone who would do it? No thanks. I love my daughter and would want her to have it done by the most qualified people available, just like any other medical procedure.

It is NOT just like any other medical procedure. Its only goal is the extermination of a unique member of our species who has committed no other crime than to exist.

As far as my sister is concerned (and other gay people) I support equality under the law.

Why? Laws are unequal all the time. Minors can't vote, smoke, drink, or join the military. Do you support a 5 year old's right to equality in voting?

Period. Not everything that is legal is something I do but that does not mean condoning discrimination. And incidentally, she has a living will but in some matters (visitation) that still would not give her wife equal access to what I have. That's plain wrong.

First off, you are wrong. In 2010, Obama signed a resolution that would allow homosexual pairs to visit each other in the hospital. Second, an Advance Directive clears up all of those problems.

Neither of those is bigotry. These people have done something that is a crime.

So? It's still bigotry to judge someone based on previous behavior. And I stand tall in mine in those two cases.

As for your warmongering, as I said, that's exactly what repelled me about conservatism (more than anything else, that was it.) People who live under a dictator can fight for their freedom (as the people in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and now Syria have done.)

And they get slaughtered by the thousands because they are untrained, unprepared, and unable to mount a serious threat to those dictators.

I'm OK with supporting them with food, medicine, pressure on their governments or possibly even with weapons, but that is completely different from invading a country to try and 'hand' democracy to people who may not even want it.

True. Actually fighting FOR them gives them a better chance to survive. Had you seen Kosovo or Iraq before we stepped in, you would have had a different opinion.

Like you are so fond of saying about wealth, freedom is best appreciated if it is earned, not handed to them.

So, we help them - the way the French helped us get free of Britain's tyrany. Fight with them since they can not fight for themselves.

In any case, it is NOT the role of the U.S. to try and solve everyone else's problems.

To quote Spider Man... with great power comes great responsibility.

Yes, the world is full of evil people. We won't kill all of them, and in the process of trying we end up killing many others as 'collateral damage.'

And that collateral damage is far less than what the opposition would do to them...

Case in point, Afghanistan. We seem to make a 'mistake' there at least once per month. And what there is worth American lives and money anyway?

The Afghan peoples' freedom.

Heck, it is true that iron and copper mines are now operating in Afghanistan-- by the Chinese. So we are spending our treasury, and spilling the blood of our soldiers, and what little profit there is to be made in the country (and it is small) is being made by the Chinese.

That goes for our country too.

And, we are stuck in the middle of a tribal war between the Taliban (mostly supported by the Pashtuns) and a corrupt government (Karzai is descended from the Popalzai tribe, blood enemies of the Pashtuns.)

It goes much further back than that. The Afghans were descended from a tribe that raided the spice road for a thousand years and killed everyone they could in the process. It's in their belief system and in their heritage.

In Iraq, we ended up trying to keep the peace in a sectarian war with tribal overtones.

Where Sadaam was killing thousands and thousands of his enemies in cold blood.

Sorry, but I'm sick of this sacrificing the lives of our young people trying to get people on the opposite sides of feuds that go back to the dawn of civilization to be nice to each other. Spend the money on the needs of our own citizens.

Every soldier knows what they signed up for. I know I did. I was willing to die for my country and her interests. I really don't believe you are.

Not at all. First, you seem stuck in the common excuse that people who don't have health insurance are just too lazy to get a job.

Straw man. I quoted Paul who said those who WON'T, not CAN'T, work.

In fact, if someone is completely destitute they are already covered by Medicaid. What the PPACA covers is mostly the working poor, who may work 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage and no benefits and are therefore uninsured. But they are not lazy.

Never implied otherwise.They work, they deserve help.

Further, if you assume that everyone who is unemployed is that way because they are too lazy to work, then you completely undercut Romney's whole rationale for running for President, inasfar as he is is saying that there are people who want jobs and can't find any. So which is it?

I was unemployed for the last 4 months, so I have a more broad perspective on the subject than many do. I also know there are people who milk the system and simply refuse to work because they would lose their handouts.

Bottom line is, I've seen this argument before. It's a nice cover for what I've learned is often the truth from conservatives: that they have theirs, and frankly wouldn't care if the uninsured (who they can easily rationalize as 'lazy' whether it's true or not) all dropped dead tomorrow. Heck, last year during a debate the Tea Party audience agreed with the idea that they should:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yva0VSN1_T4

It's a politically charged atmosphere and generalizations are common. How it was intended, as fighting against lazy system-whores, is obviously not how you took it. The video you posted is stupid, to be frank, but that is not what I, or any other rational conservative, want.

Another typical right wing rationalization for not giving two cents about their fellow man.

Bologna. I care a great deal for them. However, I live by the old addage that says "give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life."

First, there are more than 30 million uninsured U.S. citizens in the U.S. p

Why?

Will get to the rest later

So even if you say, fine, don't insure the illegal immigrants, the large majority of uninsured are your fellow citizens. Second, do you (or anyone) hang out at the door to the ER waiting to pay people's bills? Any individuals? Any churches? NO. Nobody does that! So since nobody does that, your whole argument that it should be up to 'individuals' is faulty. Either there is in reality no expectation that people will do this as individuals, or else we are all sinners for not doing it.

So in other words, I believe that paying taxes so that treatment for these people will be paid for is a worthwhile use of my tax dollars, again certainly more worthwhile than wars in places we have no business being.



I think I already addressed that. Tyranny in Iraq, or Myanmar, or Iran, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or Congo, or China, or Cuba, or Sudan, or... (do you want to bomb them all?) is something that their own citizens should address first and foremost (just as the citizens of the former eastern bloc countries did.) I'm not adverse to helping them (especially if it is 'help' by means of empowering them to be able to go out and fight for their own freedom) but it seems we have too much suffering that we aren't addressing at home in the United States before we appoint ourselves to go out and save the world from itself.[/QUOTE]

[roadwalker]

I can see we are talking past each other (kind of like when we talk about the LDS religion.) You won't convince me, and I won't convince you. Clearly our views on everything from abortion to gay rights to the definition of bigotry to health care to warfare and when it is appropriate to get into a war differ (though I am glad to hear that you support helping the working poor, who work hard but truly cannot afford health care-- maybe we have some common ground somewhere.) As far as my daughter, I did everything I could to talk her out of it. It was successful. But if it were not-- then don't tell me all I could do would be to continue arguing. Though we should both be grateful that it was (in fact, I'm taking my granddaughter to the movies tonight.)

That said, I do take some issue with your characterization that I don't defend my country. In fact, I love my country, and I want to see it move forward and for life to be better for all of our citizens. There are a lot of reasons I don't like war, but not the least of which is that whether a soldier signed up to be ready to fight or not, I hate the idea of American blood being spilled in cases where our country's vital interest is not at stake. Of all the wars in my lifetime, the one and only war I actually did support was the initial Afghan war (where we should have finished the job instead of being sidetracked into Iraq.) And I still support going after al-Qaeda anywhere and everywhere. I don't however support the present Afghan war (and unlike a lot of conservatives who read talking points and will only spout support for their candidate on every position, I've been and will continue to be critical of Obama's policy in Afghanistan-- we have become the Soviet Union and he has turned a stalemated war that he should have just negotiated a way out of into a war that we could lose, could very well lose-- and that concerns me a lot. And if we do lose, then yes, that will be Obama's fault and nobody else's.)

[Cow Poke]

I can see we are talking past each other (kind of like when we talk about the LDS religion.) You won't convince me, and I won't convince you.

It just really seems like you're "choosing" your religious views to fit your worldview, RW.

[nrajeff]

Speaking of assistance for the poor, I saw something last week that puzzled me: I was in the usually long checkout line at Wal Mart. Directly in front of me was a big, burly man with about 6 items in his cart--all of them hunting supplies (a scope, etc.). As usually happens to me, I choose the checkout line where there something goes wrong that makes my line the longest to get through, and this time it was the card this man was trying to use to pay for his hunting gear--the system wasn't accepting it or something. I had nothing better to do but observe. The card the man was using was the state's food stamps card. With help from the Wal Mart employee, it was eventually accepted, but it left me wondering: You can pay for your rifle scope and other cool stuff with food stamps? I thought only boring stuff like bread, milk, and baby food were approved uses.

So have I been a fool because I have used my own money to buy my guns, ammo, and scopes? There's a nice Blaser rifle that I've had my eye on....

[Bill the Cat]

... There's a nice Blaser rifle that I've had my eye on....

hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid


Oh, you said BLASER, not BLASTER...

[Cow Poke]

Speaking of assistance for the poor, I saw something last week that puzzled me: I was in the usually long checkout line at Wal Mart. Directly in front of me was a big, burly man with about 6 items in his cart--all of them hunting supplies (a scope, etc.). As usually happens to me, I choose the checkout line where there something goes wrong that makes my line the longest to get through, and this time it was the card this man was trying to use to pay for his hunting gear--the system wasn't accepting it or something. I had nothing better to do but observe. The card the man was using was the state's food stamps card. With help from the Wal Mart employee, it was eventually accepted, but it left me wondering: You can pay for your rifle scope and other cool stuff with food stamps? I thought only boring stuff like bread, milk, and baby food were approved uses.

So have I been a fool because I have used my own money to buy my guns, ammo, and scopes? There's a nice Blaser rifle that I've had my eye on....

He was planning on using his hunting equipment to get FOOD! Hence, FOOD stamps....

you can give a man a fish, or you can teach/equip him to hunt down meat and KILL it!

[roadwalker]

He was planning on using his hunting equipment to get FOOD! Hence, FOOD stamps....

you can give a man a fish, or you can teach/equip him to hunt down meat and KILL it!

Or, he could be James Holmes and then you'll be feeding him and giving him a place to sleep for the rest of his life (whether it ends naturally or unnaturally.)

[nrajeff]

He was planning on using his hunting equipment to get FOOD!

That's what my wife said after I got home and told what I had seen.
My reply was similar to roadwalker's.

[Cow Poke]

Or, he could be James Holmes and then you'll be feeding him and giving him a place to sleep for the rest of his life (whether it ends naturally or unnaturally.)

I was being facetious in "justifying" the purchase of guns with FOOD STAMPS, in case anybody missed that. In Texas, we no longer use "food stamps", because it's "demeaning". Instead, people get a "Lone Star Card", which is a debit card loaded with my tax money.

And, while we're on the subject... I think people who use food stamps (or Lone Star Cards) should have to be subject to drug tests. After all, a lot of people who PAY for their food stamps have to be subject to drug tests.

[nrajeff]

I was being facetious in "justifying" the purchase of guns with FOOD STAMPS, in case anybody missed that. In Texas, we no longer use "food stamps", because it's "demeaning". Instead, people get a "Lone Star Card", which is a debit card loaded with my tax money.

And, while we're on the subject... I think people who use food stamps (or Lone Star Cards) should have to be subject to drug tests. After all, a lot of people who PAY for their food stamps have to be subject to drug tests.

The card in my state is named similarly--after the state's nickname. And I think at least one state has already begun drug testing its recipients. It's Utah.
Some legislators in my state have drafted similar legislation, but I don't think it has made it very far.


By the way-- I probably won't be posting much anymore. Other projects have risen to the top of my priorities list. I expect I will read the newest threads once a week, but I no longer have the "fire" in me to spend hours debating stuff. And thanks to everyone who has recently "toned it down" recently, there isn't as much "machine" to rage against anyway. Carm still has lots of acrimony, so I might throw in an intemperate comment there from time to time, as "Knox."

I also expect that OC won't be posting much, if at all from here on out. In case I don't say it later, most of you have taught me things about your versions of Christian doctrine that I either didn't know, or that I had mistaken ideas about, and I thank you for that. And once or twice I learned something about LDS history that I didn't know, so you have helped my education.

Gotta go now.