Let me dumb this down for you

Would you support sharia law?

I doubt you would it’s laws based on the Koran some not much different then the 10 commandments

But I don’t what our laws based on the teachings of the Koran or the kings James bibles for the same reasons I do not was a judge to pass sentence based on his religious beliefs or based on the beliefs on the person being sentenced …

Faith from all religion has great benefits for many from the down trodden to the sick to those looking for a higher power for direction ..

But as usual you confused I suggest religion has no place in politics as somehow an attack on people of faith in politics

Religion has no place in policy ! People of faith are welcomed in politics And these 2 positions are not remotely the same . Except to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:....this should be fun

“would you support sharia law.”

same logic ( lack there of) when you asked if i want mine fields to control immigration.

When liberals have lost the debate, they often respond not to what the conservative said, but to something that doesn’t come close to resembling the conservative ever said.

i never said i wants sharia law, that’s a moronic straw man extreme guy created, i don’t know who you’re responding to there, but i never hinted at sharia.

i pointed out reports, even in ultra left wing tags, that show positive benefits of judeo christian values, and since somehow you don’t seem
to already know this, judeo christian values are a little bit different than sharia law.

Try responding to what i’m actually saying, as opposed to some gibberish extreme that i never came close to saying.

All liberals do it. you all take from the same exact play book.

From where i sit, i can see an upside to public policy that has its roots in a value system which encourages generosity, charity, happiness, strong nuclear families, and more empathy for each other.

You think it would be “bad policy” to make decisions, influenced by values which behave those results?

You’re entitled to believe that.

Sharia law and mine fields. Yes, that’s what everyone knows i want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“would you support sharia law.”

same logic ( lack there of) when you asked if i want mine fields to control immigration.

When liberals have lost the debate, they often respond not to what the conservative said, but to something that doesn’t come close to resembling the conservative ever said.

i never said i wants sharia law, that’s a moronic straw man extreme guy created, i don’t know who you’re responding to there, but i never hinted at sharia.

i pointed out reports, even in ultra left wing tags, that show positive benefits of judeo christian values, and since somehow you don’t seem
to already know this, judeo christian values are a little bit different than sharia law.

Try responding to what i’m actually saying, as opposed to some gibberish extreme that i never came close to saying.

All liberals do it. you all take from the same exact play book.

From where i sit, i can see an upside to public policy that has its roots in a value system which encourages generosity, charity, happiness, strong nuclear families, and more empathy for each other.

You think it would be “bad policy” to make decisions, influenced by values which behave those results?

You’re entitled to believe that.

Sharia law and mine fields. Yes, that’s what everyone knows i want.

Maybe you’re hearing the same
voices that Pete hears.

Wayne, when you can’t respond to what i said, and you have to pretend i said something stupidly different, doesn’t that tell you anything about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would I be embarrassed ? Do you not having any empathy for these people who feel they need to do what they are doing?

Are they are being deported? Are they not?

Or is this another faux invasion so they can vote for Dems

The United States' southern border with Mexico is 1,933 miles long, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the tip of South Texas. Some 700 of those miles have fencing in place


Why do conservatives only think in terms of obstacles.. as solutions

From fences to voter id to 6 week Abortion laws

But they never look at stability as the easiest way to slow migration

Yet we’re not building a 5525 mile fence with Canada

Why because Canada is stable .
We only get their comedians

Look at the facts Haiti and the Dominican Republic

Same island 1 side stable 1 side not

And who’s under the bridge Haitians whom homes were destroyed by a earthquake and their political system In turmoil from an assassination

Cause and effect
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

same question as in another thread…wayne, when you can’t respond to what i actually said, and you have to pretend that i said something totally different ( mine fields, sharia law), what does that tell you about your beliefs?

Oh, so it’s showing empathy to allow illegal immigration? What about the abuse these people suffer at the hands of the smugglers on the other side? some estimates say that 25% of the women who cross illegally, are sexually assaulted on the mexican side, because bad guys know where the crossing points are.

So if slowing that to happen, if incentivizing people to abandon toddlers at the border, if incentivizing adults crossing illegally to “rent” children so they can enjoy the benefits of appearing as a family unit, if all that is showing empathy for these people, sorry i don’t see it.

i have deep empathy for anyone feeling despair. doesn’t mean i want them all coming here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim if you allow religious based politics and allow religion to dictate
Policies you get Shia law! No difference then using the King James Bible ( if you read the next sentence)

That’s is the extreme example but as if on cue you thought it was directed at you. Which it was not

I share many values that my religious friends share they may embrace them via church I embrace them because it’s the right thing to do we can hold shared values in America with out holding the same Book..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again mines field it was a (rhetorical question). Aka what’s the solution if deportation isn’t enough and people are unwilling to send money to these countries to improve conditions so they don’t want to leave ..

And we’re talking about Haiti not Mexicans and what happens on that side .. with the rights faux outrage on what those women face as if the GOP gives a rats you know what just like the Afghan women and children .. we care but like you said

doesn’t mean i want them all coming here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re so wrong. you can make policy based on religious beliefs, without becoming a theocracy. those two things aren’t remotely the same thing.

all good politicians advocate for public policy based on what their conscience tells them is right. there are many ways of forming a conscience. people form consciences based on what their parents taught them, what they learned in school, what they hear in TV, what they read, even what they hear in church.

Our constitution says there is no official, state sanctioned religion. It doesn’t come close to saying we remove religion from public office, that’s settled case law. That doesn’t come close to meaning that a religiously-informed conscience isn’t compatible with democracy, while a conscience formed by what someone learned at school is compatible.

Consciences formed by religion have done incredible things throughout our history.

As i’ve shown ( as reported in the New York Times and The Huffington Post), religiously informed consciences can motivate people to do some really good, productive things.

I’m not saying we make divorce illegal because it violates catholic catechism - that would
be a theocracy as you correctly stated. No one is advocating for that. i’m saying we promote and advocate the benefits of strong families, of generosity, of having ACTUAL empathy for each other, and advocating for a culture that is designed to make people
feel good about themselves. That’s not what we have now. Especially not in our cities.

The anti segregationists like Rev Martin Luther King, Eisenhower, and Jack and Bobby Kennedy, had anti segregation positions that were influenced heavily by their faith. Are you saying it was therefore wrong to pass the anti segregation laws?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what you written is how it should be

But states like Texas and others involving abortion . It’s all driven by the religious right .. all in the name of votes and Republicans seem to be the only party trying to overturn ROE. Aka religious right a very vocal but small minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but it’s ok for a politician to say, “i think abortion should be illegal”, even if that opinion is formed by his faith. we don’t dismiss opinions that are influenced by faith. that’s not what separation of church and state means.

Show me a politician who is trying to make his whole religion the law of the land, and i’ll agree that’s a clear violation of church and state.

We don’t require anyone ( except judges i guess) including legislators, to leave their religion at home when they go to work.

sure it’s republicans predominantly who want to overturn Roe. but we aren’t all blindly following our religion. What I mean is, i’m catholic. If the pope said tomorrow that abortion is ok, i wouldn’t suddenly be pro choice. I’d find another religion that feels abortion is wrong, because the catholic church would no longer be the place for me.

I’m not anti abortion because i’m catholic. That’s kind of backwards. More correct to say that I’m catholic, because I’m anti abortion. my anti abortion stance led me to catholicism. does that make sense? I chose catholicism because it fits me, i didn’t change everything i previously believed once i became catholic. when catholicism says everything i hold dear is wrong, I’ll
leave. I don’t think my church is perfect ( i’m pro gay marriage for way longer than most democrats), good for me the catholic church allows dissent on that issue ( not on abortion).

i’m sure there are a small number of kooks who want a theocracy, but that’s nowhere close to what the overwhelming majority of the GOP wants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

leftists think that anyone who disagrees with them must have been brainwashed in some way not to agree by someone that disagrees with them with them because they can't possibly be wrong...or brainwashed...it's pretty funny

So the Catholic Church has always been against abortion?

Lots of Popes and Catholic scholars would disagree with that.

The Church’s longest held belief on this matter is one of “delayed hominization,” or that a fetus could not gain a soul until it was “formed.” St. Thomas Aquinas, a major heavyweight in the Catholic Church in the 13th century, took after Aristotle and believed that being formed enough for ensoulment happened at around 40 days for males and about 80 days for females. More commonly, ensoulment was deemed to happen at the “quickening,” the moment when a pregnant woman first feels her child move, normally around 18 weeks into a pregnancy. While Catholic law frowned upon abortion, it ruled that it was only homicide if it occured after the fetus gained a human soul.

Writings from the time show that abortion was a widespread and largely socially accepted practice, and in some cases, supported by church leaders. In the fifteenth century, St. Antonius, Archbishop of Florence, defended abortions that were medically necessary for a pregnant woman so long as they occurred before ensoulment. Antonius wasn’t a controversial figure. The pope at the time declared him to be a “brilliant theologian and a popular preacher,” and Antonious’ view was shared by many influential theologians.

Things changed in the late 1580s when Pope Sixtus V came to power. Sixtus V was a notoriously harsh man. Prior to his papacy, he was recalled from his role as the inquisitor general in Venice due to his intensity. In 1588, he issued a papal bull declaring that abortion at any stage of a pregnancy was homicide, and that the punishement was excommunication that could only be lifted by traveling to Rome to beg for forgiveness. However, Sixtus V seemed to be uninterested in enforcing this bull, and frequently granted special dispensations to bishops to handle matters themselves and did not wish for women who procurred abortions to be treated as if they had committed homicide.

This hardline stance on abortion lasted only three years. In 1591 the new Pope Gregory XIV reversed the decision, declaring abortion to only be homicide if it took place after ensoulment, which he determined took place 166 days into a pregnancy, or well over halfway through the second trimester. This decision lasted for 278 years until Pope Pius IX reversed the decision yet again in 1869 and made abortion after conception a sin that automatically excommunicated those involved in its procurement from the Catholic Church. There are only nine sins that have automatic excommunication as a punishment. This new ruling elevated abortion to the same level of sinfullness as punching the pope.

In other words, typewriters, electric batteries, and elevators were all invented before the Catholic Church hardened its stance on abortion. Pope Pius IX didn’t change the Church’s stance on abortion, however, because he believed that ensoulment happened at conception. Rather, he believed that conception gave the potential for ensoulment, and that that potential must be protected. For some, this argument is wildly unpersuasive. Daniel Maguire, a professor emeritus of theological ethics at Marquette University, a Catholic institution, wrote in The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health & Ethics, “The argument is heard that the fetus is ‘potential life.’ That's wrong. It's real life. It just has not reached personal status. It is potentially a person, but the potential is not actual. After all, gentle reader, you and I are potentially dead but would not like to be treated as if that potentiality were fulfilled.”

He goes on to say, “There may be serious and justifying reasons for killing pre-personal, fetal life. The decision on that belongs naturally to the woman who carries that life. Women have a far better track record than men when it comes to cherishing and protecting life. Let's leave abortion decisions up to them”