Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Not surprised either by this exchange.

On the first point, I was criticizing how what is celebrated on Passover was a one-time event and not a continuing belief that first-born should be killed. As such, your extension of that in your example didn't make sense.

---

LOL, there are a lot of things about the story of passover that make it inapplicable to our society today, the least of which is because it was a one-time event. I very clearly said we shouldn't kill people because it happened in a religious story but you are quibbling about the nature of the religious story itself.

calbear93 said:

---

Just because a group of Christians believe something does not make the push for restrictions on abortion a theocracy. First of all, you never addressed my point that most of the Democrats claim to be Christian and yet are still pro-choice. Also, Sotomayor is Catholic and Jackson is a Protestant. Are they practicing theocracy or are you just saying anyone who is pro-life must a a "cleric". How do all those Catholics and Protestants who support pro-choice laws align with your view that this is solely a Christian issue? And you choosing to call in a derogatory manner justices as "radical clerics" is showing that all of this is coming from your view on their religious choice and not on their legal arguments. I am certain that most folks who voted for the conservative justices would have also done so for a non-Christian and non-Catholic who was pro-life. But not surprising that you do not answer this question on aligning so many Christian Democrats with your view on this being a theocracy since you want to make this an attack on Christianity and not about belief on when life starts.

---

Actually, the important fact is that the push for restrictions on abortion is religious in nature is what makes it a theocracy. The fact that other people are religious but don't attempt to enshrine their religious beliefts into law is something I've addressed and isn't relevant to the fact that 6 religious clerics just issued what is essentially a religious opinion in Dobbs. I'm surprised you would continue to pretend that Christianity has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision when it is the clear motivating factor. Judge Alito, who wrote the religious opinion, recently spoke about his decision in a panelon religious liberty in Rome sponsored by Notre Dame. I suppose if he did so while tap dancing on the popemobile you still might not see what's going on but I assure you, the rest of us do.

calbear93 said:

---

I also never stated that THIS COUNTRY was anti-Christian. How does me saying that the progressives here are anti-Christian translate in your brain to me saying the country is anti-Christian? I know you spend a lot of time here, but this is not the entire world or even this country. And there is a clear bias against Christianity here on this forum.

---

You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.

calbear93 said:

---

And you think "worship" means only religion. People have beliefs and morals based on what they worship, whether religion, money, power, status, political purity, peer affirmation, comfort, other people, romantic relationships, etc. You know what you worship? You worship whatever takes up your time, energy, passion, and money. You worship what you fear losing the most. And what you worship defines your moral values. You worship money? Guess where your morals and values are going to go. You worship getting pat on the back for parroting party lines? Guess how you will spend your time here?

---

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.

calbear93 said:

---

And unsurprisingly, you never answered your basis for your beliefs. You think Christians only think along Christian lines. What drives your morals? Utilitarianism? You clearly do not believe in a creator that defines morals and good/evil. So, is it subjective moralism? Everyone is right and everyone is wrong depending on your personal views of good and bad? Nihilism? Superman theory of might defining right? If you are pushing for your values in how this society should be run, is it that you are pushing what you are worshiping on us? Doubt you will answer that.

---

Again, you seem to have missed the point. As often happens with the topic of religion, you have trouble disentangling arguments that get confused in your head. As I have stated multiple times, it's not that ALL Christians ONLY think along Christian lines. First - I will note that you don't even consider Catholics to be Christian because they don't meet your purity test, so you can pretend like this doesn't involve Christians. Second - I've clearly stated that my issue is with the theocracy, not Christians themselves. I could care less if people want to believe in or worship a creator, that's up to them. What I object to is people imposing those beliefs on other people, particularly with the force of law, as the 6 radical clerics on SCOTUS have done with Dobbs.


To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.


I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

First - wanted to say I commend you for engaging in this conversation and apologize if anything has offended you. That has not been my attempt and I know religious-related conversations can be difficult whether in a public or private forum.

calbear93 said:

---

You know I respect your intelligence but I am going to hold you accountable here.

So, let's break down what you are saying here.

(1) Christianity dictates that life starts at conception. Democrats like Pelosi, Jackson and Biden who are Christian, being Christians, accept that life starts at conception but are OK with killing life because they don't want to push their beliefs into law. As such, they will accept that life is being eliminated for political expediency. If political pressure dictated that kids up to 5 year old can be killed because they redefined life, Pelosi, Biden and Jackson will support it because they don't want to impose their religious belief.

(2) Abortion is about when life starts, and Christians can disagree. As such, arguments about abortion right is about disagreement about when life starts and not about whether Christians want to impose theocracy or whether Democrat Christians are OK with killing life for political expediency.

Only one of these can be true.

---

I don't think I've ever made a claim about what Christianity dictates regarding life or that "abortion is about when life starts." That may be something you believe and it may be something that Christianity dictates, but it's not dispositive to me.

To be clear, what I've said is that there are Christians who may believe what you believe but choose not to impose their views on others. We will get back to this point later in the post, because I think it's the most important element of the theocracy.


I don't think that it's only political expediency that prevents some religious people from attempting to impose their beliefs on others - it's also enshrined in the constitution.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.

---

This is what I wrote about bias. Please tell me how you could in good faith misread this to mean I was referring to all of America.


"I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance."

"Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice."

---

I never referred to the language above. The quote below is where I saw you reference anti-Christian bias, and I misread that in the context of our conversation to refer to the US, since we were discussing the US not just BI. But I understand that you were just referring to BI in your statement.

calbear93 said:

---

Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.

---

I know you can read more than one sentence so why did you ignore this second definition in Oxford?

adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society's worship of teenagers"

We all worship something where we believe that one thing will bring us happiness. Not sure where you think your happiness lies, but that is what you worship. The anxiety you feel about losing something - that is what you worship. Not an insult, but we all live for something.

---

The second definition says "comparable to religious homage." You are making what I consider to be an unsupported claim that everyone worships something. We simply don't agree on this point.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.

---

Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.

---

I said above that I would re-visit the point about Christian beliefs and political expediency. I will address that before discussing "pushing [my] atheism on others." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the totality of what you are saying but it seems like you are both skeptical of Christians who don't believe that the law should force birth AND seeking to make a claim that Alito's faith didn't have anything to do with the Dobbs decision. For the record - do you really think Alito's faith was inconsequential in the Dobbs decision? I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was based in large part on his faith. I don't think the Federalist society who hand-picked these judges believes that the two things are independent. I don't think the powerful conservative evangelicals who celebrated the nomination and confirmation of these judges thinks that they are independent. I'm not sure what you are claiming here.

As for my views, I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone. I'm not forcing a 10-year old rape victim to have an abortion. I'm not forcing a religious adult with an ectopic or life-threatening pregnancy to have an abortion. If a pregnant person chooses not to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy, that's her decision and I support her right to do so, whether based on her faith or other reasons (assuming there is no foul play - eg she hasn't been defrauded by a doctor or someone else). I am saying that pregnant people should not be forced to give birth due to the fact that our supreme court is composed of religious clerics and she happens to have the misfortune to live in a state where theocrats have decided that abortion should be illegal because they believe Christianity demands it. There is a big difference between my belief that pregnant people should be able to make their own decisions in this context and the theocratic belief that the government needs to prevent these decisions from happening because they believe those decisions could be inconsistent with Christianity. I'm honestly surprised you are disagreeing with me here because it seems that you genuinely believe that abortion is inconsistent with Christianity and you don't seem to be troubled by the notion that our laws would enforce that view.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.

---

I am glad you are brining your interaction with your doctor to inform your moral values, but how does your general gravitation toward John Rawls and your personal comfort with your visit with your doctors override Alito's basis for what matters more? Why do you believe you are right and Alito is wrong?

---

This is an easy one. My doctor and I didn't decide what other people should do, just for me. I didn't decide that Alito should get a medical procedure. I didn't decide what medication Alito should be on. That would be ridiculous and if I had claimed a right to do that, I think you would be well within your right to question my basis. And if my basis were religious, you would be well within your right to tell me to keep my religious views to myself. That's what we are talking about here. It's not whether I have a reasonable basis for making my own personal health decisions, it's whether I can impose on others.

If you want to talk about a better example, we can talk about Jehovah's witnesses. Every once in a while some dispute comes up because someone of that faith denies their child life-saving care. I have no problem with an adult choosing to die rather than seek medical treatment because their faith prohibits it. I don't know how Alito would feel about someone denying their child life-saving treatment due to religious faith. I do know that if Alito tried to tell you that you should deny your child life-saving care because of Alito's faith, you would probably not react very kindly. That's far closer to what we are talking about here. It's no different from Muslim Sharia law or Jewish law imposed in Israel. The difference is that we in America aren't supposed to live in a theocracy. That's not what our founders signed us up for but it's what you seem to be advocating. And that's where I have a problem.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side.

---

oski003 said:

---

What are your thoughts on our theocracy's criminalization of prostitution. Is it just a relic of an earlier time when the founding clerics made laws?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

What are your thoughts on our theocracy's criminalization of prostitution. Is it just a relic of an earlier time when the founding clerics made laws?

---

I don't have a well-developed view on the criminalization of prostitution but I've never believed it to be just based on theocracy. Maybe I'm wrong there, I am open to the discussion.

I don't support criminalization of sex work based purely on theocracy but I don't necessarily think it should be legal just because religion may forbid it. Sex trafficking and victimization of sex workers is a real problem that needs to be combated.

---

The executive director of a new TX crisis pregnancy center proclaims that "a lot of 13-year-olds do phenomenal" as mothers. She also believes that the 10-year-old rape victim should not have gotten an abortion: "even at 10, she knows a life is inside her." https://t.co/1V0gzxt1hn pic.twitter.com/YPalaN8vs6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 1, 2022

Quote:

---

Pinson told the Washington Post that the new Corpus Christi facility will possess the ambience of a "coastal spa" and is geared toward young college-age women. The center currently boasts a 50-person staff and $2 million annual operating budget budget, according to the report. The center also offers Bible Study classes, according to Pinson, and clients who attend them are rewarded with "points" that can be exchanged for baby clothes or diapers.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cb93 - do you think the views in this tweet are based on religion?

The executive director of a new TX crisis pregnancy center proclaims that "a lot of 13-year-olds do phenomenal" as mothers. She also believes that the 10-year-old rape victim should not have gotten an abortion: "even at 10, she knows a life is inside her." https://t.co/1V0gzxt1hn pic.twitter.com/YPalaN8vs6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 1, 2022

Texas is funding this center (and many others) to the tune of $100M per year.

Quote:

---

Pinson told the Washington Post that the new Corpus Christi facility will possess the ambience of a "coastal spa" and is geared toward young college-age women. The center currently boasts a 50-person staff and $2 million annual operating budget budget, according to the report. The center also offers Bible Study classes, according to Pinson, and clients who attend them are rewarded with "points" that can be exchanged for baby clothes or diapers.

---

Do you really think it's unfair to talk about a theocracy or for me to assume religion is involved in this context?

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cb93 - do you think the views in this tweet are based on religion?

The executive director of a new TX crisis pregnancy center proclaims that "a lot of 13-year-olds do phenomenal" as mothers. She also believes that the 10-year-old rape victim should not have gotten an abortion: "even at 10, she knows a life is inside her." https://t.co/1V0gzxt1hn pic.twitter.com/YPalaN8vs6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 1, 2022

Texas is funding this center (and many others) to the tune of $100M per year.

Quote:

---

Pinson told the Washington Post that the new Corpus Christi facility will possess the ambience of a "coastal spa" and is geared toward young college-age women. The center currently boasts a 50-person staff and $2 million annual operating budget budget, according to the report. The center also offers Bible Study classes, according to Pinson, and clients who attend them are rewarded with "points" that can be exchanged for baby clothes or diapers.

---

Do you really think it's unfair to talk about a theocracy or for me to assume religion is involved in this context?

---

Do you think your views on abortion only come from atheism?

I don't speak for every other Christians.

The only thing Christians have in common is that we trust Jesus for our salvation and are reborn in spirit through Him, choosing Him over the world. We are brothers and sisters in Christ but we don't agree on all things.

You and other atheist have in common your rejection of a higher being instead believing that we are all just random, accidental creation without any design like a rock was a random collection of atoms.

You keep misusing theocracy as If this were not just some semi-clever, thing to persuade others to your argument. If this were a theocracy, you would be charged for blasphemy and people would be imprisoned for adultery. I think you are confusing certain Christian's believing that life begins at conception to a theocracy. Nothing of the sort. They just happen to disagree with you when life starts. Their view may come from their religion on when life starts or it may not. Your rejection on life starting at conception may come solely from your rejection of religion or it may not. It is no more a theocracy than pro-choice folks are trying to eliminate religion.

But again, Christians are not monolith in thinking on all things like atheist like you are not monoliths in all thinking. Every time an atheist does something, I promise I won't ask if you support it. I have already told you my views. Isn't that what matters? Why do you care my opinion on every other thing another Christian or alleged Christian does?

I feel like you and I are just going around in a circle where it becomes about scoring points and not about debating. That just gets boring. Not sure what more I can add to what I wrote considering I wrote a lot. If you still have questions on my thoughts, feel free to DM but let's not pollute this board with more of the same.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

---

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?

---

My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

---

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?

---

My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

Most western countries seem to answer that question with "at about 16 weeks", give or take, judging by laws in Europe and other places. Roe arbitrary created the judicially mandated (and made up) trimester/viability standard. Now we get to vote on it.

---

juarezbear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

---

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?

---

My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

Most western countries seem to answer that question with "at about 16 weeks", give or take, judging by laws in Europe and other places. Roe arbitrary created the judicially mandated (and made up) trimester/viability standard. Now we get to vote on it.

---

Given what happened in Kansas, I wish we actually could vote on it. Polls have consistently shown that roughly 65% of the US population supports the right to choose. However, gerrymandered voting districts have assisted in keeping GOP forced birth legislatures (and a Trumpian majority on the SCOTUS) in power and it's those legislators rather than the population that generally vote on the issue. It's not true representative democracy. I'm sure there are states in the Deep South and the Upper. Midwest, along with Utah and maybe Idaho, where the general population might vote against choice and given the recent SCOTUS opinion, pro-choice residents of those states might have to live in a forced-birth Christian Nationalist (as MTG stated) world.

---

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side.

---

I wonder if you would accept the posit that there really is no defense, no explanation of all the events, that gets Trump et al off the hook.

You hear no supposed "other side" because the "other side" is far far far worse than you could imagine.

And it would not only take down trump but a huge percentage of republican leadership.

Would you accept that posit??

I think it's quite plausible. I think that's spot on.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unless you believe that conservative judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, etc), is predicated on Christian views, the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

---

FBI To Host First Annual Jan 6 Reunion https://t.co/w9GpzjiYpR

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 4, 2022

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Here's a good example of the sort of radicalized moron who stormed the capitol. Is he reflective of the typical GOP voter? I would expect not. Are people like him being further radicalized and egged on by GOPers? Absolutely.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Stephen Miller and Brian Jack subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/us/politics/jan-6-trump-political-aides-subpoena.html

---

After Fox called Arizona for Biden, top anchor Bret Baier emailed network president Jay Wallace that "The Trump campaign was really pissed" and "The sooner we pull it ... and we put it back in his column the better we are in my opinion," per a new book. https://t.co/xGnG0IqcSL pic.twitter.com/LD6VKm4h31

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) September 20, 2022

Note that Baier wasn't urging Fox to put Arizona back in the "too close to call column" -- he's directly recommending giving it to Trump because his people are mad. Biden ultimately won by ~11,000 votes, things would have gotten even messier if Fox had done this.

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) September 20, 2022

In testimony to the Jan. 6 committee earlier this year, Stirewalt defended Fox's Arizona call. https://t.co/iopcu4PrK1

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) September 20, 2022