|
| Thread: The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted June 09, 2011 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey Bak -
Have you noticed a conspicuous lack of any attempt on Elodin's part to answer any of our questions? At this point, he can't even claim that it's because we don't answer his, so I can only conclude that he just can't come up with a decent answer.
Really, I only asked one simple question, which I'll repeat here:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other?
I suppose that I have no other choice but to declare victory. 
Between jury duty and business endeavors I've been busy the past few days. Rest assured I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow morning at the latest.
Oh, you still have not answered all my questions either. See page 4.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 05:00 PM |
|
|
Are you claiming that jury duty is more important than OSM talk? 
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 07:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So baby sacrificing it out, except when God explicitly calls for it. IF he did that, it would be moral to do so.
Certainly didn't seem to bother Abraham while he was tying Jacob up...
|
|
tsar-ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 10, 2011 11:45 PM |
|
|
100% that this will pass, but it's nice to see peoples opinion on the matter
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 11:05 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:06, 28 Jul 2011.
|
Ah, a judge makes a decision based on actual law.
Clicky
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A judge on Thursday struck a measure from the city's November ballot that called for a ban on most circumcisions of male children, saying the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom and a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 08:05 AM |
|
|
Not like that was a surprise anyways. At least they can still adapt the bill so it would fit the necessairy criteria to actually be accepted.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 04, 2011 07:52 PM |
|
|
And there you have it.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2011 10:23 PM |
|
|
How does it break religious freedom when babies that get circumcised have no religious freedom themselves? Those babies do not choose to be circumcised in the name of a religion. They do not choose to be raised by religious parents who will try to indoctrinate them with religion.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 12:34 AM |
|
|
Did I read the whole of Elly's site wrong?!?!
In english, did the bill pass or not, because I read it as yes and have reason to doubt that this is the case, ergo why i'm asking.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 07:47 PM |
|
|
The judge ordered the measure removed from the ballot because it violates the US Constitution as well as California state law.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 04:24 PM |
|
|
[continued from the thread about requiring parents to have a license which some people seem to be focused on derailing]
@JJ
Quote:
Yeah, let's just agree that the Jews introduced the general moral that if in doubt everything concerning sex is immoral while everything concerning violence is not.
Nah, I could not agree with such a statement because could only consider it to be a deliberate lie or a display of astounding ignorance of the teachings of the Bible.
Sex within a marriage is blessed. Sex is God's idea and was declared by God to be "very good."
It is rather unfortunate that you continue to make false statements about the Bible. Such actions by atheists are one reason they are the most despised minority on the planet in pretty much every poll. The actual teaching of the Bible is that violence is ok only in certain situations. Self defense or justifiable wars for example. We are to do our best to live at peace with all men, but that is not always possible because men like Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, ECT, do not want peace.
Quote:
Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Quote:
That's not really astonishing, considering that their lone God was - as opposed to the ones being worshipped by other peoples - asexual, but quite violent.
Nah, I could not agree with such a statement because could only consider it to be a deliberate lie or a display of astounding ignorance of the teachings of the Bible.
Of course God is asexual. He is a Spirit. He is not the product of reproduction, not merely one member of a species, and does not reproduce. The pagan deities were obviously fairy tales and could not have been the First Cause of all things. God as described in the Bible however, matches exactly what is needed to be the first cause of all things.
God is not violent. God is however the judge of all and everyone is held accountable to him for their deeds. I know such a concept is infuriating to people who ignorantly think right and wrong don't exist but "oh well" the wicked will eventually reap what they have sown.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 06:36 PM |
|
|
"The pagan gods were obviously fairytales"
i'm sorry but I really don't see what makes them less likely to be true than modern mythologies such as christianity and islam
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 07:40 PM |
|
|
So how about that circumcision topic? Pretty *adjective* isn't it?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 11:51 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:51, 22 Jan 2012.
|
Replying to an ancient JJ's post isn't going to keep me off your back, El, because you didn't address my last post in this topic, nor the other one. I am willing to go to hell and back with this.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 11:59 PM |
|
Edited by elodin at 00:03, 23 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
Replying to an ancient JJ's post isn't going to keep me off your back, El, because you didn't address my last post in this topic, nor the other one. I am willing to go to hell and back with this.
Then go to hell.....and back
What precisely that I have not already addressed do you wish me to address? I am more than happy to enlighten those who live in darkness. 
Oh.....uhhhhhhh.. the post of JJ's I responded to was posted on 1/22/12 in another topic I was wanting not to be derailed. It is rather strange and bizzare that you say that I was responding to an "ancient" topic of JJ's. But then I WOULD NEVER accuse liberals of being even slightly logical!!!!
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 12:04 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:20, 23 Jan 2012.
|
Awesome!
Alright let's start with the bit about would you take masturbating on a baby for a religious freedom, and circumcision for a crime worthy of imprisonment, if said masturbation was done in Israel 2000 years ago instead of circumcision.
EDIT
Also, lol, didn't follow - thought you were replying to something from this thread. And the term "liberal", although beautifully encompassing everything wrong with humanity in Texas slang, might cause a tad of confusion, considering I'm from Europe and our liberalism, just like our football, is a thing not only different but also far better than the American version.
Then again, I'm neither of those liberals much like I follow neither of the footballs.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 12:25 AM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 00:26, 23 Jan 2012.
|
I dont think it has anything to do with religious freedom but more to do with social norms, they used to stone people (matter of fact they still do in certain countries) to have honor killings and a bunch of other stuff, however those arent allowed even though freedom of religion exists, so if it seems harmful to the baby in the eyes of the society it doesnt really matter if it's religious or not, law is what counts...
____________
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 01:09 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:10, 23 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
Alright let's start with the bit about would you take masturbating on a baby for a religious freedom, and circumcision for a crime worthy of imprisonment, if said masturbation was done in Israel 2000 years ago instead of circumcision.
**assumes stance of one who is amused and the unenlightened question**
The Bible specifically states that sex is for male and female, husband and wife, and that both man and woman are in the image of God. However strong your desire is to masturbate on your offspring, it is immoral. Not only that, but I find such a desire to be sick, revolting, and an affront to both God and man. So it is immoral today and if you had lived 2000 years ago it would have been immoral then.
Quote:
EDIT
Also, lol, didn't follow - thought you were replying to something from this thread.
***assumes lecturer stance***
Well, since I clearly stated at the beginning of the post, "[continued from the thread about requiring parents to have a license which some people seem to be focused on derailing]" perhaps you should actually READ WHAT OTHER POST BEFORE REPLYING!!!!
Quote:
And the term "liberal", although beautifully encompassing everything wrong with humanity in Texas slang, might cause a tad of confusion, considering I'm from Europe and our liberalism, just like our football, is a thing not only different but also far better than the American version.
I agree that though the words may differ, the concept of liberals being responsible for everything wrong with humanity is a universal truth!!!! You have come far, grasshopper!!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 01:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
However strong your desire is to masturbate on your offspring, it is immoral. Not only that, but I find such a desire to be sick, revolting, and an affront to both God and man. So it is immoral today and if you had lived 2000 years ago it would have been immoral then.
But even you agree that not everything that is immoral should be illegal. The question is not "Is it moral to masturbate on babies?" but "If one's religion requires it, should it be legal to masturbate on babies?" Should it be legal? If not, why? How do you reconcile this with the idea of religious freedom?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 01:44 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:51, 23 Jan 2012.
|
Nonono, El, see, I thought the special derailing Someone was, in fact, yours truly, and that you revived this thread (the origin of my struggle for free Satanic masturbation) to illustrate that any relevant discussions belong here, and not over there. Everything stemmed from your reluctance to point your finger at JJ and say "LO! THE HEINOUS PERPETRATOR".
Anyway.
The Bible, the Old Testament specifically, states various things on various issues. It can be argued to a level of success that a certain amount of those aren't regarded as applicable in the contemporary world because stoning people for their sexual preference or whether they obey their parents doesn't seem like that good an idea anymore. But never mind that - we've had these discussions for dozens of pages. Let's regard the Old Testament, for the sake of the discussion, as a literal holy scripture of a people and a community, with everything in it still applicable, including circumcision.
If a holy scripture states that its followers (specifically some guy's parents in the instance about circumcision) have the holy right to commit a forceful, non-consensual, physical attack on him, what is it - except for tradition - that makes it more righteous than a Satanic scripture that tells its followers they ought to masturbate on their babies? You don't appear to be supporting religious freedom, then, because what you're saying is: "My religion says that it's wrong, therefore any followers of a different religion will be imprisoned if they act differently." Because you didn't offer any reason other than the Bible as to why masturbating on your child would be wrong. Another thing that implies you don't support religious freedom is the circumcised man: even if he chooses not to follow Judaism, or to follow a modified version that doesn't include messing around with penises, he'll be scarred for life by this rite - equivalent to, for example, a sect of Christians who brand a cross to their children's foreheads. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you?
Finally, if circumcision can't be regarded as a physical offense and an act of intentional mutilation of a child, and doesn't count as such, Satanic baby masturbation can't be regarded as a sexual act, either. It's a specific kind of religious rite, isn't it. That's another thing altogether. If you say it's automatically a sexual thing because it involves reproductive organs, you apparently haven't delved too deep into what exactly is targeted by circumcision.
EDIT
Or, in short, what MVass said, just with a few more sub-questions.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
