[besson3c]

Hello,

I'm posting here because I think this is more philosophical in nature, and I hope this conversation doesn't get into religious debate, criticism, and other mud-slinging that would warrant a thread lock or transfer to the Political Lounge.

I have a very simple message to everybody with a faith of any kind, I'm wondering if you feel that this simple message is one that you agree with, has some value, and I'm also wondering how far you think it can be extended...

To me, the central tenants of any religion involve striving towards peace and love and tolerance of thy neighbor. To me, the importance and needs to reach these ideals trumps everything else.

It has been proven countless times in our history that foisting our personal religious beliefs on others results in conflict - a move away from the goals of peace and love of thy neighbor. While religious beliefs are almost always deeply personal to us, and really invokes a hostile reaction when they are challenged, foisting other sorts of non-religious beliefs on others of any kind (e.g. environmental beliefs, disdain of Walmart, computer platform choice, whatever) can similarly result in moving away from our strike-zone of peace and love of thy neighbor.

My belief is that by tolerating and making it a point to not foist our beliefs on others, in the case of religious beliefs this is actually more desirable, holy, and honoring our commitment to our faith than being a foister.

I think that if everybody would embrace this simple message as their moral "strike-zone" (strike zone meaning center/target) and that dogma and evangelism as being dangerously close to an evil, we would be far better off. I believe that an international recognition of this message would absorb hatred like a sponge.

Apply this to all of the social issues in our society today: gay marriage, abortion, etc. Isn't the right to choose without somebody dictating this decision to us closer to what God intended rather than somehow stifling this freedom? Again, I don't want to get into a debate over these issues, just sharing a philosophical thought.

What do you think?

[Doofy]

I believe that anyone should be able to do what they want provided:

1) They don't annoy me (i.e. giving their boyfriend a BJ in the middle of the street, swearing in front of my mom, etc.).
2) They don't use my tax dollar to do it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I believe that anyone should be able to do what they want provided:

1) They don't annoy me (i.e. giving their boyfriend a BJ in the middle of the street, swearing in front of my mom, etc.).
2) They don't use my tax dollar to do it.

#1 would not be loving thy neighbor, as clearly many neighbors would not be comfortable with this sort of thing and would consider it a slight of some kind.

As far as the use of tax dollars, that seems to be a whole other argument altogether. Clearly there is need for some taxes to be spent on some stuff, it's just a matter of figuring out what this stuff ought to be.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by besson3c

#1 would not be loving thy neighbor

No, it would be loving thy boyfriend, obviously.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

As far as the use of tax dollars, that seems to be a whole other argument altogether. Clearly there is need for some taxes to be spent on some stuff, it's just a matter of figuring out what this stuff ought to be.

As an example, I'm not happy with my tax dollar being used to fund abortions.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Doofy

As an example, I'm not happy with my tax dollar being used to fund abortions.

And I am not happy with my tax dollars being used to fund photo ops for those in power. So what?

PS-Those with causes should go argue/fight with those opposed. I suggest that they go to Iraq. The rest of us can live in peace here. sam

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SVass

And I am not happy with my tax dollars being used to fund photo ops for those in power. So what?

PS-Those with causes should go argue/fight with those opposed. I suggest that they go to Iraq. The rest of us can live in peace here. sam

I don't agree that there is no room for discussion and debate over things like foreign policy. However, there is a fine line between representing the consensus based on the political pretense of striving towards accomplishing the greater good, and waging ideological warfare using political or physical power as a tool to do so.

It's a very hard line to distinguish, but I think it does exist.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

2) They don't use my tax dollar to do it.

What would you like to see your tax dollars/pounds being used for?

[osiris]

The only hope is to move to Marklar, where Marklars are free to Marklar with other Marklars - without fear of Marklar or Marklars imposing their Marklars on Marklar.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SVass

And I am not happy with my tax dollars being used to fund photo ops for those in power. So what?

If you're using my money for something I don't agree with, then you're foisting your belief system on me. Which is what this thread is about.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

What would you like to see your tax dollars/pounds being used for?

External defence (protection from invasion).
Internal defence (protection from criminals).
Basic education.
Basic health care.
Basic infrastructure.

Period.

[Mastrap]

How do you suggest advanced healthcare and education should be funded? Privately? Would you be happy with the result money = health and money = education?

[Ozmodiar]

Originally Posted by osiris

The only hope is to move to Marklar, where Marklars are free to Marklar with other Marklars - without fear of Marklar or Marklars imposing their Marklars on Marklar.

That would be Marklar, except these Marklars and trying to Marklar us out of our Marklar-given rights as Marklars to Marklar as we Marklar.

[Salty]

My way of thinking is:

Jesus taught that the most important thing in life is to love God.
The second is like it, and birthed from it, to love others.

Why do we love others? Because they are fellow image barers of God. Thus you can not show love to God without showing love to His creation.

This means all Christian behaviour is birthed out of love, and ultimately love for God.

Peace is one thing, tolerance is another. And it depends on which definition of tolerance you go by. If you go by the fact that everyone should be able to be who God made/is making them to be without you forcing or wanting to force them to be someone/something else, then yes I agree.
However if tolerance means accepting what I do that is not birthed out of love, and condoning it, then I disagree.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

How do you suggest advanced healthcare and education should be funded? Privately? Would you be happy with the result money = health and money = education?

I'll try to be clearer. By basic I mean essential. To health, this means no tit jobs or abortions on the NHS. To education, this means no RE (or RI, as it's called these days), no doing your thesis on Superman and no courses in "how to be a rock star".

[Salty]

By the way evangelism is simply trying to convince someone of your way of thinking. As you are doing right now. Granted evangelism can often take more in your face approaches. But one of the evangelism techniques I use is simply being my normal blunt self. I am clear about the things that influence my way of life and my perspective on it, and since I'm a fairly unique person I get lots of questions about it, so I get to share my faith. I rarely if ever talk about God to someone on anything more than a surfacey non-intrusive manner unless they invite me to do so. And funny fact, these days LOTS of people actually do want to talk about God, because there are so many people telling them that they should be respectful and not talk about any contentious issues.
Eventually you need something to talk about other than sex.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll try to be clearer. By basic I mean essential. To health, this means no tit jobs or abortions on the NHS. To education, this means no RE (or RI, as it's called these days), no doing your thesis on Superman and no courses in "how to be a rock star".

And who would make the decision on what is deemed essential? I am not trying to rib you, I am just trying to point out that one man's essential service might very well be another man's wastefulness and the other way round.

Personally I think a society is better off paying for abortions than letting girls go to have their uterus scraped out by a backstreet practitioner. Which is what will happen to poor women if you make abortion a privilege for the rich.

I will also gladly pay for somebody's thesis about superman because I have frequently seen gold come out of mud. Not always, I grant you, but frequently enough to see the value in it.

I would be far more worried about the censorship you're proposing than about some tax money going down the drain.

Now, needless bureaucracy.... there's a target worth investigating.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

And who would make the decision on what is deemed essential? I am not trying to rib you, I am just trying to point out that one man's essential service might very well be another man's wastefulness and the other way round.

Not having those 38DD implants isn't going to kill you.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Personally I think a society is better off paying for abortions than letting girls go to have their uterus scraped out by a backstreet practitioner. Which is what will happen to poor women if you make abortion a privilege for the rich.

Those poor women should have thought about that before they bumped uglies. I'm supposed to pay for the results of their having their moment of fun? PayPal me a couple of hundred, I just broke my front drive shaft while I was having some fun on some rocks.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I will also gladly pay for somebody's thesis about superman because I have frequently seen gold come out of mud.

So you pay for it. Don't expect me to - that'd be you forcing your beliefs on me.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I would be far more worried about the censorship you're proposing than about some tax money going down the drain.

No censorship involved. I'm not saying you can't do a thesis on Superman - I'm just saying that I don't want to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Now, needless bureaucracy.... there's a target worth investigating.

I think we can agree there.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Those poor women should have thought about that before they bumped uglies. I'm supposed to pay for the results of their having their moment of fun? PayPal me a couple of hundred, I just broke my front drive shaft while I was having some fun on some rocks.

Yes, those poor rape victims really should have thought twice before having so much with that knife to their throat.

So you pay for it. Don't expect me to - that'd be you forcing your beliefs on me.

So, say that I don't want my tax money to be spent on 'external/internal defence' or basic education. If they were, that would then be you foisting your beliefs on me. What I'm saying is that if you believe the way taxes are spent represents someone foisting their beliefs on others, the only way to really achieve a state where no one foists their beliefs on anyone else would be to have no taxes whatsoever, and have everything be privately paid for, though this would pretty much also mean no government or social stability. In other words: pure anarchy. As soon as you have tax money, some of it will unavoidably be spent in ways some people don't want. The best we can do is to try to create a political system that ensures that tax money is being spent on things that as large a majority as possible can agree with.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Ozmodiar

That would be Marklar, except these Marklars and trying to Marklar us out of our Marklar-given rights as Marklars to Marklar as we Marklar.

You are a wise Marklar. May Marklar be with you always.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Yes, those poor rape victims really should have thought twice before having so much with that knife to their throat.

Of course, in my perfect society (and that's what we're talking here, isn't it?) there would be no rape either.

Originally Posted by Oisín

So, say that I don't want my tax money to be spent on 'external/internal defence' or basic education. If they were, that would then be you foisting your beliefs on me. What I'm saying is that if you believe the way taxes are spent represents someone foisting their beliefs on others, the only way to really achieve a state where no one foists their beliefs on anyone else would be to have no taxes whatsoever, and have everything be privately paid for, though this would pretty much also mean no government or social stability.

That'd suit me too. It obviously works in the real world when the nation is small (i.e. Andorra, Caymans). I wonder how it'd work when the nation is large?
Was there no government or social stability in the US prior to 1913?

[natural1]

Y'know - love thy neighbor sounds all good, but if your neighbor is an a-hole who makes your life a living hell, then some well-placed hatred goes a long way. Hate is a natural emotion, given that 50% of the world's population are self-involved pricks.

Supressing hate makes us anxious and unsettled and makes us into worthless wimps. Feel your hate. Live your hate. I'm not suggesting that we live our lives filled with hatred and malice towards all people - only those who deserve it.

Love and hate are not always polar opposites - just different aspects on the same range of emotion toward others. Indifference is far worse than either.

[Salty]

Love is not an emotion as much as it is a state of being.

[besson3c]

Doofy, what you are talking about is completely different than the intent of this thread.

You are talking about foisting political beliefs on you by forcing you to pay for taxes for things you don't want. I'm talking about personally foisting ideology on people.

You can make the argument that politics inevitably involve foisting things on other people, but unfortunately the nature of politics is that of compromise and not always getting what you want. You simply can't make everybody happy.

Can you see the difference, or are we arguing semantics?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Hello,

I'm posting here because I think this is more philosophical in nature, and I hope this conversation doesn't get into religious debate, criticism, and other mud-slinging that would warrant a thread lock or transfer to the Political Lounge.

You must have missed this part: Political/War Lounge (5 Viewing)
Politics, war, religion, party bickering, etc. Please check straw men at the door.

Originally Posted by besson3c

I have a very simple message to everybody with a faith of any kind, I'm wondering if you feel that this simple message is one that you agree with, has some value, and I'm also wondering how far you think it can be extended...

I do not agree with it.

Originally Posted by besson3c

To me, the central tenants of any religion involve striving towards peace and love and tolerance of thy neighbor. To me, the importance and needs to reach these ideals trumps everything else.

Not my religion. My religion's number one tenent is to worship God. Everything else is a distant second.

Originally Posted by besson3c

It has been proven countless times in our history that foisting our personal religious beliefs on others results in conflict - a move away from the goals of peace and love of thy neighbor. While religious beliefs are almost always deeply personal to us, and really invokes a hostile reaction when they are challenged, foisting other sorts of non-religious beliefs on others of any kind (e.g. environmental beliefs, disdain of Walmart, computer platform choice, whatever) can similarly result in moving away from our strike-zone of peace and love of thy neighbor.

And yet you seem to think it's right for you to "foist"/preach your belief to us? Don't you find that hypocritical? I certanily do. Don't tell me what to do if you can't do it your self.

Originally Posted by besson3c

My belief is that by tolerating and making it a point to not foist our beliefs on others, in the case of religious beliefs this is actually more desirable, holy, and honoring our commitment to our faith than being a foister.

And yet you are still "foisting" your "belief" on us. Hypocrite.

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think that if everybody would embrace this simple message as their moral "strike-zone" (strike zone meaning center/target) and that dogma and evangelism as being dangerously close to an evil, we would be far better off. I believe that an international recognition of this message would absorb hatred like a sponge.

You should listen to your self and "embrace" your own belief. Hypocrite.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Apply this to all of the social issues in our society today: gay marriage, abortion, etc. Isn't the right to choose without somebody dictating this decision to us closer to what God intended rather than somehow stifling this freedom? Again, I don't want to get into a debate over these issues, just sharing a philosophical thought.

What do you think?[/QUOTE]
God intended us to worship Him. Everything else is second. Freedom to worship Him is the priority.

[besson3c]

Doofy, I think what you are talking about is completely different than the intent of this thread.

You are talking about foisting political beliefs on you by forcing you to pay for taxes for things you don't want. I'm talking about personally foisting ideology on people.

You can make the argument that politics inevitably involve foisting things on other people, but unfortunately the nature of politics is that of compromise and not always getting what you want. You simply can't make everybody happy.

Can you see the difference, or are we arguing semantics?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

However if tolerance means accepting what I do that is not birthed out of love, and condoning it, then I disagree.

What does this mean? How can tolerance not be "birthed out of love"? Did you mistype this?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My belief is that by tolerating and making it a point to not foist our beliefs on others, in the case of religious beliefs this is actually more desirable, holy, and honoring our commitment to our faith than being a foister.

I agree.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Doofy, what you are talking about is completely different than the intent of this thread.

You are talking about foisting political beliefs on you by forcing you to pay for taxes for things you don't want. I'm talking about personally foisting ideology on people.

You can make the argument that politics inevitably involve foisting things on other people, but unfortunately the nature of politics is that of compromise and not always getting what you want. You simply can't make everybody happy.

Can you see the difference, or are we arguing semantics?

Politically, they are forcing a him to do something against his religious belief. Paying for abortions. So, they are forcing their religious belief on him. It's really quite simple.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You must have missed this part: Political/War Lounge (5 Viewing)
Politics, war, religion, party bickering, etc. Please check straw men at the door.

I do not agree with it.

Not my religion. My religion's number one tenent is to worship God. Everything else is a distant second.

I know you're just trying to bait me, so I'll make this response brief... Where did I say anything that conflicted with your number one tenant? If you are alluding to my comment of "peace and love of thy neighbor trumping everything else", why would you think that "everything else" would include your worship of God? What one Earth can anybody do to prevent you from having a personal relationship with God? How am I threatening you and your worship?

You have a grudge with me, and frankly you couldn't be any more transparent. Fine, but don't waste your time baiting me with your childish rhetoric. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll be happy to attempt to clarify, but I have better things to do than to defend myself for no particular reason.

For somebody who calls himself Christian, why are you constantly on the warpath? Why do you desire to cut me down a notch or two? Why can't you conduct conversation in a civil manner?

[jesusbristow]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Hello,

I'm posting here because I think this is more philosophical in nature, and I hope this conversation doesn't get into religious debate, criticism, and other mud-slinging that would warrant a thread lock or transfer to the Political Lounge.

I have a very simple message to everybody with a faith of any kind, I'm wondering if you feel that this simple message is one that you agree with, has some value, and I'm also wondering how far you think it can be extended...

To me, the central tenants of any religion involve striving towards peace and love and tolerance of thy neighbor. To me, the importance and needs to reach these ideals trumps everything else.

It has been proven countless times in our history that foisting our personal religious beliefs on others results in conflict - a move away from the goals of peace and love of thy neighbor. While religious beliefs are almost always deeply personal to us, and really invokes a hostile reaction when they are challenged, foisting other sorts of non-religious beliefs on others of any kind (e.g. environmental beliefs, disdain of Walmart, computer platform choice, whatever) can similarly result in moving away from our strike-zone of peace and love of thy neighbor.

My belief is that by tolerating and making it a point to not foist our beliefs on others, in the case of religious beliefs this is actually more desirable, holy, and honoring our commitment to our faith than being a foister.

I think that if everybody would embrace this simple message as their moral "strike-zone" (strike zone meaning center/target) and that dogma and evangelism as being dangerously close to an evil, we would be far better off. I believe that an international recognition of this message would absorb hatred like a sponge.

Absolutely, positively correct.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Apply this to all of the social issues in our society today: gay marriage, abortion, etc. Isn't the right to choose without somebody dictating this decision to us closer to what God intended rather than somehow stifling this freedom? Again, I don't want to get into a debate over these issues, just sharing a philosophical thought.

In the strict sense of a good argument, you open a CostCo sized can of worms here. Not that I disagree with you, but you sum up a few hot potato topics and slew of other unnamed ones which won't persuade the uninitiated to your fine reasoning.

BessonOil, you must find a more moderate/persuasive way to state this last paragraph. Again, I agree with you, but I listen with the opponent's ears-- and I ain't buyin' this last bit.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Politically, they are forcing a him to do something against his religious belief. Paying for abortions. So, they are forcing their religious belief on him. It's really quite simple.

My last response to Doofy also applies here. To summarize: I think there is a difference between personally foisting ideological belief on people vs. having to go along with political consensus.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jesusbristow

Absolutely, positively correct.



In the strict sense of a good argument, you open a CostCo sized can of worms here. Not that I disagree with you, but you sum up a few hot potato topics and slew of other unnamed ones which won't persuade the uninitiated to your fine reasoning.

BessonOil, you must find a more moderate/persuasive way to state this last paragraph. Again, I agree with you, but I listen with the opponent's ears-- and I ain't buyin' this last bit.

BessonOil? Oil? Where did that come from?


I realize that arguments as vastly complex as gay marriage et all can't be neatly explained away and solved with a single paragraph. My closing paragraph was intended to merely be food for thought. If I wanted to produce a compelling and persuasive argument in the hopes of influencing the masses, I probably would have left that paragraph out altogether, or at least been more clear in framing it as food for thought.

[jesusbristow]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Politically, they are forcing a him to do something against his religious belief. Paying for abortions. So, they are forcing their religious belief on him. It's really quite simple.

Here's the problem with that reasoning Railroader: it's against my religious belief to pay for genocide/religious/Iraqi war. It's also against my religious beliefs to support a President who's openly divisive with his religion.

The obvious solution to this problem is to have a part of our taxation be selective. That is, we could assign a third of our taxes to wherever we wished. This would be taxation with representation, something new for America. It would also settle all sorts of silly disputes like funding illegal wars, PBS, teachers, abortion, prisons, you name it.

Imagine a country where the people could stop a war by simply opting out of paying for it. Imagine a country where abortions were perfectly legal for those who want them. Two caveats:

1. People who wish to have abortions must pay for them via their taxes. Say you're a religious conservative against abortion and you don't wish to fund them. Fine. If you need one later on, have a change of heart, too bad.

2. If you opt in to paying for a war, don't be surprised if you get drafted.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jesusbristow

Here's the problem with that reasoning Railroader: it's against my religious belief to pay for genocide/religious/Iraqi war. It's also against my religious beliefs to support a President who's openly divisive with his religion.

The obvious solution to this problem is to have a part of our taxation be selective. That is, we could assign a third of our taxes to wherever we wished. This would be taxation with representation, something new for America. It would also settle all sorts of silly disputes like funding illegal wars, PBS, teachers, abortion, prisons, you name it.

Imagine a country where the people could stop a war by simply opting out of paying for it. Imagine a country where abortions were perfectly legal for those who want them. Two caveats:

1. People who wish to have abortions must pay for them via their taxes. Say you're a religious conservative against abortion and you don't wish to fund them. Fine. If you need one later on, have a change of heart, too bad.

2. If you opt in to paying for a war, don't be surprised if you get drafted.

Very interesting idea... the main problems I can see with it are that people make bad decisions, and their stances shift over time as circumstances allow. Looking at your number 1 caveat, what happens if I have a change in heart about abortion even well before somebody close to me needs one?

An interesting idea though, I'd like to talk about this some more...

[besson3c]

Also, Jesus,

You're new here, so you may not realize this yet, but throwing in little snippets of stuff like referring to Iraq as an "illegal war" without elaborating further on this inflames the pro-war people, and leads them to returning fire (often the catalyst works in the reverse direction too). As you'll find in here, so much of the conversation that takes place here is unfortunately not civil and full of mud-slinging that is quite distracting from the important subjects. You simply are not going to change the basic viewpoints of most people in here, that is something I think we all come to accept over time. Hell, it would be a major feat just to get some people to make a single *concession* against their party they are loyal to.

Honestly, I believe it's best just to leave out comments like that, and can even lead to making your point more poignant and effective. Just offering my FWIW here and trying to be constructive.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I know you're just trying to bait me, so I'll make this response brief... Where did I say anything that conflicted with your number one tenant? If you are alluding to my comment of "peace and love of thy neighbor trumping everything else", why would you think that "everything else" would include your worship of God? What one Earth can anybody do to prevent you from having a personal relationship with God? How am I threatening you and your worship?

You have a grudge with me, and frankly you couldn't be any more transparent. Fine, but don't waste your time baiting me with your childish rhetoric. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll be happy to attempt to clarify, but I have better things to do than to defend myself for no particular reason.

For somebody who calls himself Christian, why are you constantly on the warpath? Why do you desire to cut me down a notch or two? Why can't you conduct conversation in a civil manner?

Says the guy who canstantly talks about pooping in kitchens and baiting Kevin about triangle playing. I have no grudge with you. I am simply calling you out for what you are. A hypocrite.

Your logic is extremely flawed and you are purposfully obtuse.

Quit being so hypocritical. You need to learn what civility is before you even attempt to lecture anyone else about it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you're using my money for something I don't agree with, then you're foisting your belief system on me. Which is what this thread is about.

That’s not totally true either, for one you can't say your dollars are being spent on abortion, because its impossible for you to track your dollars once it enters into the system. Now on the other hand the state is spending its collected taxes on abortion, that again does not force the states belief on you either because you are not actively involved in the abortion. Now if the state had asked you to say go work at one of the clinics, or to distribute flyer's on it then that would be the belief on you. Its like when I give money as a gift to some one for there birthday, its now there's not mine, they do as they please with it, it does not reflect on me in anyway at all because my hands are not longer tied to that money.

[Athens]

To clarify my belief, I believe in God or a higher power. I don't believe or support religion. As long as religion doesn’t try and force its beliefs on me I couldn't care less that it’s out there. I do take offence when in the morning getting off sky train I get hounded by 3 or 4 religious nuts trying to convert me at the bottom of the platform. When it comes to public institutions I don’t think ANY religion belongs there because the very definition of PUBLIC means it’s for every one and not every one is of the same faith. By allowing one religion into public institutions that makes it a inclusive club for those of the same faith.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Politically, they are forcing a him to do something against his religious belief. Paying for abortions. So, they are forcing their religious belief on him. It's really quite simple.

Spot on RR.

[Athens]

ok let me ask you this question then, when you give money to store, and in turn that store pays its employees, and that employee with his money buys drugs, which is against your belief as a example. Are you not then contributing to the act indirectly? Its the same thing as giving your money which is a required act to the state and the state spending it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens

That’s not totally true either, for one you can't say your dollars are being spent on abortion, because its impossible for you to track your dollars once it enters into the system.

Since it all goes into one big pot, this is incorrect.

If they gave me an opt out of paying for stuff I don't agree via a tax reduction and segregation of those funds from the central pot, I'd be satisfied.

[Athens]

it goes into a giant pot, how do you know the dollars you put into this pot didn't pay for some ones heart surgery or the bullets in the guns of your troops. It is impossible to say your little contribution directly paid for a abortion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens

ok let me ask you this question then, when you give money to store, and in turn that store pays its employees, and that employee with his money buys drugs, which is against your belief as a example. Are you not then contributing to the act indirectly? Its the same thing as giving your money which is a required act to the state and the state spending it.

The store is an independent entity. What they do with their money (and it is their money once the transaction has taken place) is up to them. Government is *not* an independent entity, as it's supposed to represent the people.

(I still minimise my spend at such stores.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens

it goes into a giant pot, how do you know the dollars you put into this pot didn't pay for some ones heart surgery or the bullets in the guns of your troops. It is impossible to say your little contribution directly paid for a abortion.

You're looking at it wrong. It's not about tracking my dollar through the system - it doesn't work like that. Once my dollar is in the system, 0.000001% of it goes to abortions, 0.0004% of it goes towards bullets, 99.000006% of it goes on Cherie's dresses and witch doctors, etc.

(Those figures are, of course, wrong. No way of getting the real figures unless you're Gordon Brown. Simply an illustration to show how to look at it)

[Athens]

The government is also a independent entity and is elected by the people to represent people. Democracy means the wishes of the majority overrule the minority and not every one gets there way. Could you imagine the mess that would be created if every one could pick and choose? For example say most of the people of one town didn't want there tax dollars spend on a freeway that is in another part of the country. Or half the population didn't want there tax money spent on the military so those that have no problem with it have to pay twice as much because its something they do support. The system is fair in its current form. If its a moral conflict you are in knowing that the government you either helped get elected or opposed is doing things you do not agree to because of your faith, your feelings towards the subject should be enough to vindicate you to your god as it is not your wishes and you have no direct hand in it either. After all God looks at the actions of the individual not the group right? Because if God looked at it as a group we would all be condemned to hell.

Mental note remove my cell from hotmail alerts for macnn posts lol

[Seb G]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Politically, they are forcing a him to do something against his religious belief. Paying for abortions. So, they are forcing their religious belief on him. It's really quite simple.

They're not forcing their religious belief on him because it's not their religious belief that abortions are ok, it's their rational conviction.

Originally Posted by jesusbristow

The obvious solution to this problem is to have a part of our taxation be selective. That is, we could assign a third of our taxes to wherever we wished. This would be taxation with representation, something new for America. It would also settle all sorts of silly disputes like funding illegal wars, PBS, teachers, abortion, prisons, you name it.

Politicians would use the optional third of tax money for things like education and healthcare (that's what people want) and the other two thirds for the more essential things like warfare, protecting the domestic oil industry etc.

Imagine a country where the people could stop a war by simply opting out of paying for it.

Imagine a country where people don't vote for politicians who would lead their country into war. Germany's Social Democrats narrowly won the 2002 general elections probably because they were opposing war in Iraq.


Tax money is put into a large pot, and taken out in proportion to what a majority of people votes for, this is how democracy works. Whether you vote for it in presidential elections, parliamentary elections, or with your tax declaration, the effect is the same. But presidential or parliamentary elections are a lot easier to organise.

2. If you opt in to paying for a war, don't be surprised if you get drafted.

Unless you are over 40, then you can safely opt for war.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Seb G

They're not forcing their religious belief on him because it's not their religious belief that abortions are ok, it's their rational conviction.

They are forcing him to go against his religious belief. They are saying that he has to pay for something against his religion. They are forcing him to fund things he thinks are morally wrong. They are saying abortions aren't religiously exclusionary and are A.O.K.. They are forcing their religious beliefs on him. It's really quite simple.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader

They are forcing him to go against his religious belief. They are saying that he has to pay for something against his religion. They are forcing him to fund things he thinks are morally wrong. They are saying abortions aren't religiously exclusionary and are A.O.K.. They are forcing their religious beliefs on him. It's really quite simple.

I agree with abortion for the most part, and I am not religious at all. The state also is not religious, well suppose to be, how is it them forcing their "religious beliefs" over freedom of choice. The state would have to declare there reasons for pay for abortion as a states religious belief in order for it to be "forcing their religious beliefs"

Besides as some one that A) has no choice but to give up the money, and B) has no choice where its spent, I don't see how it equals him being forced to pay for something he does not agree with. I would see it different if they either asked him to pay a clinic, or held a gun to his head and said go pay this clinic XXX money. Once the money leaves your pocket and goes into the states hands, its their hands stained in blood, not the contributor of the money in the first place who had no choice.

[wallinbl]

You can change where your tax money goes by changing who you vote for. Your choices are:

Kill babies (dems) or kill adults (reps)

Nice choice, isn't it? Where's the choice for not killing anyone?