Do you believe that the government has the right to dictate immoral beliefs to e

1. 59

   taburkettposted 9 years ago

   Do you believe that the government has the right to dictate immoral beliefs to everyone including
   
   degenerative morals of irrational personality disorder individuals that demand that their immoral acts overrule those of the moral individual.  While many politicians speak loudly and proudly of supporting "fairness", they support immoral actions disproportionately when confronted with morality advancement.  This detrimental position has led to degradation of the American society through excessive legal obstruction of "freedom fairness and equality".  Do you believe it is time for Christians to sue immoral individuals for such attacks or to charge the government with discrimination?

   replyreport
2. 65

   Tusitala Tomposted 9 years ago

   The trouble is that often those government officials don't consider their decisions and orders immoral.  It doesn't take much insight to realize that people 'rationalize' and come up with the idea they are doing something for 'the public good.'   Politicians make these choices quite frequently.
   
   Watching the television yesterday I saw a news item where a very brave young man, Pvt Bradley Manning, of the US Army, was sentenced to thirty-five years jail for making public some of the atrocities perpetrated under US military orders.  I guess millions saw the clip where an American gunship helicopter shot up around a score of unarmed civilians on the loose idea they MIGHT be enemies.   
   
   Bradley Manning will go down in history as a man with a conscience who paid a heavy price for going against the 'secrecy' that obviously would have involved a cover up.    But those who prosecuted him will be forgotten.  Most persecutors are. Do we recall the names of the Inquisitors who threatened Galleo for having the gaul to say the world wasn't the centre of the universe?   Of course not.   They are non-entities.   But Manning will be remembered for, as the song goes, 'Heroes live forever..'.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You have succeeded to be correct and incorrect at the same time. Pvt Manning was sentenced for distributing classified information. If he felt the information to be atrocities he should have raised that concern appropriately. Heroes do not do wrong.

      replyreport
   2. 38

      Borsiaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When the people at the top are the evil ones who is he going to report it to?
      It amazes me that people are condemning him without looking at what he disclosed. Things like tax money being used to buy children for pedophiles.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is too bad that people believe everything that they read in the media. No validation has been provided for any of the disclosed information. The military has charged some individuals with illegal activities. Not every court martial is public.

      replyreport
   4. 38

      Borsiaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The validation is the material itself.
      This is kind of like saying that the German's films of the holocaust killings, death camps and slave labor haven't been validated.
      Like the films were made by aliens who can't prove they were real Germans.

      replyreport
   5. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Just like the Germans, individuals have been charged. Due to testimony of individuals I personally know, they have been sent to prison charged with crimes. War is hell. Information leaked that endangers soldiers is treason. Manning is like Al Capone.

      replyreport
   6. 38

      Borsiaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Al Capone was never convicted of treason he was convicted for tax evasion.
      Manning saw evil being done that went beyond anything acceptable, since there was nobody higher who wasn't involved he turned it over to Wikileaks hopping it might be stopped.

      replyreport
3. 94

   peeplesposted 9 years ago

   Just curious here, when did your opinion of moral become the only real moral? Why is it that the Christian view is the only correct moral view? Why are many Christians unable to look at the world from any other perspective but their own?
   Many of the things considered to be morals by some are just old backwards ways that existed when people were afraid to think of others being different from themselves. You know like back when whites couldn't marry blacks or women weren't allowed to have opinions or freedom because it wasn't morally right for them to be anywhere but raising their children.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree.

      replyreport
   2. 76

      pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Great response Peeples! I'm with you 100%.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You presume to understand something that is only a fragment of logic within your own mind. The question does not imply opinion but contains facts about immoral and moral conflict. Do you believe that the government should choose one over the other?

      replyreport
   4. 94

      peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Again many of moral and immoral is a matter of opinion. Who decides what is moral?

      replyreport
   5. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Individuals decide what is moral for their environment.  When the government forces an individual to support anything the individual terms immoral, the government discriminates. This discrimination is forced immoral support for the individual.

      replyreport
   6. 94

      peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So do you support the idea of forcing moms not to work because many southerners still consider it immoral for a woman to leave the house (example)? Should the government not step in when the individuals are being unreasonable?

      replyreport
   7. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is not immoral for a wife to stay home with the children. Nor is it immoral to respect those that work. Using a similar analogy, do you believe the government should force me to be gay? Should the people not step in and declare this illegal?

      replyreport
   8. 94

      peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Many I know see it as immoral. Again opinion. The government has yet to force people to commit immoral acts, just to accept what that individual may see(opinion) as an immoral act by another. When they start saying you HAVE to be gay then I'll agree.

      replyreport
   9. 75

      CraftytotheCoreposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I've been subjected to this mentality about moms, so I know exactly how this feels.  And I'm in the North!  I've been told I lived high off the hog when I had a career, and now I'm told to stay in because it's a mans job to garden.

      replyreport
   10. 59

       taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The courts and government do require those of moral upbringing to support immoral acts. When we refuse to support them, the government then takes away our livelihood. That is discrimination, but many still support it choosing immoral over equality.

       replyreport
   11. 94

       peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'll agree to disagree. The courts have never required support, just equality. The freedom to have the same rights as everyone else. It amazes me how so many consider gayness immoral when so many children show signs of being gay at such an early age.

       replyreport
   12. 59

       taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The courts and government do require us to support immoral acts. They require companies to supply support to abortions, hire minorities who do not possess the proper skills, etc. Many support this discrimination. Others do not and then get sued.

       replyreport
4. 96

   cat on a soapboxposted 9 years ago

   The government should not have anything to do with our moral beliefs here in America. We live among others with different views, and it is up to us to find ways to live peacefully. If something goes against your morals, don't do it. Not everyone lives by the same code or religious beliefs. Yes, I get tired of  certain issues being shoved at me by the media, but I have a right to turn off the news and ignore it. We'd all be a lot happier if we were less concerned about trying to make others think the way we think. We have laws to keep reasonable order not to impose more and more restrictions because this group or that is unhappy. If we keep that up, we'll all be living in straightjackets!
   As a Christian, love your brother and let God make the judgments.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for this - I believe most rational people, Christian or otherwise, can agree this is the best approach.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I sure wish that the laws did keep reasonable order. However, under our current laws, many lawsuits have been leveled against moral individuals by immoral individuals. The government seems to continually side with the immoral to degrade society.

      replyreport
5. 75

   CraftytotheCoreposted 9 years ago

   I rarely post in topics like this because I usually get in trouble for expressing my opinion.
   
   But here it goes.  1 John 3:11.  For This is the Message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
   
   We all have freedom of choice.  If Christians start attacking and suing immoral individuals, I guess I'll be the first one to be sued.  As much as I'd like to believe I am a moral human being by my own standards:  I am a sinner.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes - we all have a choice. But only some of us must pay for the immoral acts of others when we make our choice. That is unequal  discrimination. For a government that is not supposed to favor or restrict religion-the USA sure does attack it often.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      CraftytotheCoreposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh I see what you are saying.  I think I misunderstood.  Yes, the government is supposed to separate from religion.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes that is correct. However, the politicians and radical groups wish to generate divisive turmoil by discriminating against moral individuals. The attacks have risen to a demonic level now and the nation will be destroyed if not averted.

      replyreport
6. 38

   Borsiaposted 9 years ago

   Of course the first thing that crosses my mind reading your question is "who's morals are you talking about?"
   If you are talking about the morals of some given religious preaching then I would point out that those "morals" aren't considered either moral or ethical by millions of Americans of different, or no, beliefs.
   The governments obligation is to make fair and unbiased decisions without any regard to they may sit with any religion's version of morality.
   They are the government of all of the people not some of the people.
   If anything they need to strip away some of the laws that are based on morality rather than rationality.
   As other have mentioned no one is being obligated to violate their own moral code in their own lives.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Of course. How could I have missed the fact that it is valid to discriminate against one person so long as we do not discriminate against another. No shirt - No shoes - Nooo Service. When a person is denied religious freedom it is discrimination.

      replyreport
   2. 38

      Borsiaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And when the ideals of religion are inflicted on other that is also  discrimination.
      Nobody is preventing a person to observe their moral code, so long as others aren't being harmed or infringed upon. That is freedom.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When I choose not to associate with immoral people based on my moral upbringing, I do not harm or infringe upon others. When the government forces me to support those individuals the government is harming and infringing upon my freedom.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      brblogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see anyone being denied religious freedom. In fact, we live in one of the most religiously tolerant places in the world but I so often see religious people, specifically Christians, claim that they are under attack – preposterous!

      replyreport
   5. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When an individual is required to support, house, or provide service to immoral individuals due to government determination or decree, they are under attack. It is only preposterous to those who believe that discrimination through man's law is legal.

      replyreport
   6. 38

      Borsiaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      But you forget that those who you claim you are forced to support are also supporting the things you want supported regardless of their beliefs.
      It would be great if we could all direct our tax dollars to our own causes, but not practical.

      replyreport
   7. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      How sad that someone in the USA believe that the government is better equipped to decide how to spend my money. That is because the government has coerced many into poverty and welfare. This slavery has then led to the divisive condition of the USA.

      replyreport
   8. 38

      Borsiaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The bottom line is that the voters allowed the government to take our personal power away and increase their rule over us.
      But between a corrupt system and corrupt media things aren't apt to change. Republicans and Democrats will be the ones ellected

      replyreport
7. 69

   Ceegenposted 9 years ago

   No, because you can't tame the beast. We're in the "Iron and Clay" period now. Clay and iron does not mix.
   
   And don't think of rebelling. Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft (1st Samuel ch15, v23).
   
   You can do nothing but warn them and pray, while submitting to the authorities appointed over us.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Your verse is about rebelling against God, not rebellion against tyrant. We know law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers, ungodly, sinful, unholy, for those who kill and murder, for sexually immoral, and for homosexuality. We can fix it

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Ceegenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No, we can't fix it, that's the whole point of the bible. It chronicles man's failure to remove sin from among us, because only God removes sin. Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, and you need to read 1st Samuel chapter 8, the subject is gov't.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Samuel 8: 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
      We can fix it using righteous love devoted to the Lord our God through Jesus.

      replyreport
   4. 69

      Ceegenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, you can fix it using righteous love in obedience to Jesus Christ, but you can't do it with government. That's my point.
      
      Don't cry out to God to save you, when your government turns on you and persecutes you. (1st Samuel ch8 v18).

      replyreport
   5. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      God will assist me because I do not worship the government. I only worship my Lord and Savior. He is the only shepherd that I follow. According to 1st Samuel ch8 v18, God will not assist those who worship another King.

      replyreport
   6. 69

      Ceegenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Good, and so I would suggest to stay away from voting or any involvement with politics. It is nothing but an illusion of choice, given to us by wicked men claiming to be enlightened thinkers: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

      replyreport
8. 76

   pagesvoiceposted 9 years ago

   I have asked myself whether or not I wanted to weigh in with a response to the question posed. You see, I feel that this is a topic that would be best covered in a forum atmosphere because it is more of a debate than a question and answer.
   
   Churches that preach a political agenda from the pulpit should not be given tax exempt status. Televangelists, mail order ministers and far right Christian activists are extremely troubling, along with the Moral Majority Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, National Right to Life Committee, and Vision America to name a few. These groups wish to impose their will upon the masses, regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans do not agree with their tunnel vision views.
   
   Isn't it a contradiction to oppose abortion, yet be pro capital punishment? Isn't it a sin to not love thy neighbor because of their sexual orientation? Mathew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
   
   The United States government is not forcing anyone to engage in immoral or sinful acts. The government is not making anyone take birth control, have an abortion, get married, get divorced, have out of marriage sexual relations, engage in homosexual encounters, or any other behavior you may find offensive. Instead, what the government is doing is protecting the rights of all Americans against the wishes of a few who wish to force others to adhere to standards they deem religious.
   
   We have separation of church and state for a reason and thank God we do!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The government requires companies to provide birth control, abortion, gay marriage, homosexuals, and other behavior support the individual finds offensive.  Truth is - no one is forcing the individual to work with those who find these offensive.

      replyreport
   2. 76

      pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No one is being forced to take contraception, have an abortion, or have a gay/lesbian marriage. It's all about choice and citizens have the right to choose, not be stifled/shunned by a church or religious group.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I do have a right - to choose my friends, my lifestyle, my support for righteousness, and my opposition to immoral activity. But, the government believes they can charge me with wrong doing as I express these rights. That is discrimination.

      replyreport
   4. 76

      pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rather the government is saying your will is not the will of the people and you cannot apply your values in discriminating against others. Just because you believe your way is the only way doesn't make it fact. God bless and have a nice day.

      replyreport
   5. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Again - you take one side - this makes it discrimination.  I do not discriminate because I only take my own side.  I choose who and what I support without discrimination because it is solely based on my choice.  If this offends the immoral so be it

      replyreport
   6. 76

      pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm against all zealots...right, left, up, down, white or brown. The Crusades and Taliban are clear examples of zealots gone amok. The Christian Right have not been anointed the God police.

      replyreport
   7. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Again-there comes an attack. This drives discrimination through a choice by a third party that states one individual-structure is better than another. When everyone is permitted to make their own choice with no third party force-equality is achieved.

      replyreport
   8. 76

      pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      My wife has a Masters in education and has taught in a Christian school for 39 years. Never would my wife teach your skewed and prejudiced views. If you need the last word, then the floor is yours, but I'll stand with acceptance. and tolerance. Bye.

      replyreport
   9. 59

      taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      pagesvoice - your response is typical of those who wish to deny the government discrimination used to degrade the nation. Education system has been flawed for years as it demands obedience to immoral corrupt acts. Acceptance expands the immoral acts.

      replyreport
   10. 76

       pagesvoiceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You haven't written any articles on HP, so what is your agenda here? Furthermore, what is your educational background to cast stones at those who have dedicated their lives in the educational field? Your views and philosophy are extremely flawed.

       replyreport
   11. 59

       taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       My educational background includes running a magnet school where we taught the individual to think for themselves. This included teaching the individual to read and interpret for themselves rather than being one of the herd.

       replyreport
9. 56

   celafoeposted 9 years ago

   unfortunately the only thing God ALWAYS destroys a nation  (or city) for is legislating homosexuality, so America is certainly in a bad spot now.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      aliasisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Haha... what? Is that what the right-wingers say now? As someone who studies history in depth, you've got to appreciate how blatantly made up that claim is. Err, the nations being destroyed part, because I'm not touching the alleged "God" bit.

      replyreport
10. 77

    aliasisposted 9 years ago

    Uh, this is a very hard question to answer, since you presented it in a way that isn't a question at all. For one, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your idea of "immoral beliefs" doesn't represent all Americans, or probably even most Americans. You didn't give any examples, so I'm not sure. For another, most "morals" are relative, but some are not. For example, if the gov't says you can't kill people, not even if that person is gay or black or stole your girlfriend, then of course the government ought to dictate it. Also, your "degradation of the American society" claim needs evidence, because that's kind of a big claim.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       taburkettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The government requires us to fund abortions, force us to support gay marriage, and degraded moral education. Morals are not relative but principles of conduct that produce a peaceful loving society. Current government encourages the opposite.

       replyreport
    2. 77

       aliasisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The government does NOT require anyone to fund abortions. Women who need them pretty much pay out of their own pockets.  And gay people getting married has nothing to do with you, no one says you have to "support" it, you can think what you want.

       replyreport