Christofacists at it again

Care4all said:
ahhhhh, soooooooo...this is all about the Catholics and the Pope? Tsk, Tsk! ;) gees louise Tiana....

just an fyi, they are separate Collection by the church... they do not cross over... people either make a donation to help the church pay their bills or they make a donation to the poor....or they make a donation to both.
Click to expand...

the line of demarkation is not as clear as that in many/most churches in the USA. Catholics perhaps, but not the rest.
 
The only reason I was using the Catholic Church is because they do not accept female priests and they are the largest entity suppling various charties out there....THUS helping the needy the most....

and also by using them, it fit what you considered as discriminatory practices, but what that Church would consider as religious Doctrine.....

thus bringing in the first amendment....and the spirit of the first amendment, imo.

btw...do the two of you realize the Equal Rights Amendment has never been ratified....

according to our constitution, females are still not equal to men....

I think this is the bigger cause and issue and would be a great focus if you think that gender discrimination is important...80 years after its introduction, we still need 3 more states to pass it to ratify it...

that is just unbelievable to me!

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/overview.htm

care
 
LadyT said:
Actually you're the one that keeps bringing up the catholic church. I was teasing YOU in that statement :pke: :p

And I do know about the two collection plates. At my old church there would be like 3 or even 4 collection plates that went around. It was pretty annoying. Finally someone got Savy enough to have one envelope with different amounts written to different things on it.
Click to expand...

yes, when I was young and went to church, they had the same thing and then they went to envelopes so you could know in writing what collection you were donating to....and sometimes additional envelopes were mailed out for individual, separate and specific causes, like a Guatamalian Children's fund or for the rebuilding of a damaged church structure....
 
Where in the constitution does is state that women are not equal to men? I have no problem with the amendment being passed, but some say the 14th amendment makes it moot, and I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that makes women less than men, is there?
 
IHateGovernment said:
I wish they passed the ERA. If the ERA was passed it would be unconstitutional to deny gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...



"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think it is already IHG, and I'm not certain that passing an amendment which stated "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." would change anything. Now that I look at both of them side by side like that, I do think the ERA is more specific, and maybe a better argument could have been made for gay marriage under that. I don't know, I guess I just feel that as long as people are so bigoted, and as long as there is such a strong lobby against it (by the RR), that you'd have a hard time getting the ruling. And I don't care what amendment you had, with this Supreme Court, you're not going to get it.
 
Care4all said:
The only reason I was using the Catholic Church is because they do not accept female priests and they are the largest entity suppling various charties out there....THUS helping the needy the most....

and also by using them, it fit what you considered as discriminatory practices, but what that Church would consider as religious Doctrine.....

thus bringing in the first amendment....and the spirit of the first amendment, imo.

btw...do the two of you realize the Equal Rights Amendment has never been ratified....

according to our constitution, females are still not equal to men....

I think this is the bigger cause and issue and would be a great focus if you think that gender discrimination is important...80 years after its introduction, we still need 3 more states to pass it to ratify it...

that is just unbelievable to me!

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/overview.htm

care
Click to expand...

I did not know that! Thanks for the info.
 
uscitizen said:
the line of demarkation is not as clear as that in many/most churches in the USA. Catholics perhaps, but not the rest.
Click to expand...
Certainly true, but what does that matter...it is a free to join organization or you are free to donate to it if you feel like it and if you don't feel like it then DON'T....?
 
LadyT said:
I did not know that! Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...


I don't think it will pass in my lifetime. Too many geeks like Brent believe that if it passes, they'll never get laid because they'll have no, what George Costanza used to call "hand".

Not that he's wrong. And that's why he's a facist who wants to boss women around.

It takes a confident man to support equal rights for women. And they don't need any help getting laid.
 
LadyT said:
I did not know that! Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...


Brent's theory on athiests who want to limit tax cuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent
They hate the Lord.....They're following orders from their master, Lucifer. I know this from experience.

Lady T,

When did Brent stop working for Lucifer? I thought he was still working for lucifer? He's doing a fine job of turning people off to christianity, with his extremist views....
 
These non profits are not using YOUR TAX MONEY to help the poor... they are using the every day person, the tax payer and even the non taxpayer's donations to help the needy, homeless and poor.

And they are doing this because these people need help, and there is no help to be found by these needy people's government....and it is becoming more and more difficult to get any kind of help from our government for those in true need....it is getting worse and worse because of the government's spending on useless things like trillion dollar wars with Iraq...

Why in heaven's creation would you want to take the money that was going directly to the poor...DIRECTLY TO THE POOR, with very, very, very little overhead expense taken out of each dollar donated, and give 1/3 of this donated money going directly to the poor to the USA gvt, so they can then use it in Iraq, instead of the poor, because YOU think a Church's PRIVATE and religious Doctrine discriminates against people that voluntarily CHOOSE to JOIN this establishment and accepts this establishment's religious doctrine?

In addition to this, non Christians, non Catholics and even athiests are known to donate to the various Catholic Charities....because near every cent on the dollar goes directly to the needy...
 
Cypress said:
Brent's theory on athiests who want to limit tax cuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent
They hate the Lord.....They're following orders from their master, Lucifer. I know this from experience.

Lady T,

When did Brent stop working for Lucifer? I thought he was still working for lucifer? He's doing a fine job of turning people off to christianity, with his extremist views....
Click to expand...

LOL, I still think he's a plant.
 
Where in the constitution does is state that women are not equal to men? I have no problem with the amendment being passed, but some say the 14th amendment makes it moot, and I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that makes women less than men, is there?

The 14th doesn't help women. It was created to apply to race and ethnicity. Even Ted Kennedy says so. The ERA would have been a 14th for sex and gender. As it is right now the government is allowed to make different laws regarding sex and gender. It this wasn't the case it would be illegal to have different standard for acceptable operations for women in the military. But this is not so.
 
In this particular thread people consistently confuse tithes with alms which are two separate things. The Church receives tithes to use as it sees fit. You give alms to promote charity and it is a personal responsibility. That the Church spends money on charity from tithes is not a sign that donations directly to that charity are the same as tithes. They are not. Churches rarely, if ever, spend money advertising their charities and therefore more money donated directly to their charities gets to the intended recipients than private charities who promote giving with advertising dollars (United Way)...
 
I think this is the bigger cause and issue and would be a great focus if you think that gender discrimination is important...80 years after its introduction, we still need 3 more states to pass it to ratify it...
//

Now there is a political plank for the election if I have ever heard one. I agree.
 
Care4all said:
These non profits are not using YOUR TAX MONEY to help the poor... they are using the every day person, the tax payer and even the non taxpayer's donations to help the needy, homeless and poor.

And they are doing this because these people need help, and there is no help to be found by these needy people's government....and it is becoming more and more difficult to get any kind of help from our government for those in true need....it is getting worse and worse because of the government's spending on useless things like trillion dollar wars with Iraq...

Why in heaven's creation would you want to take the money that was going directly to the poor...DIRECTLY TO THE POOR, with very, very, very little overhead expense taken out of each dollar donated, and give 1/3 of this donated money going directly to the poor to the USA gvt, so they can then use it in Iraq, instead of the poor, because YOU think a Church's PRIVATE and religious Doctrine discriminates against people that voluntarily CHOOSE to JOIN this establishment and accepts this establishment's religious doctrine?

In addition to this, non Christians, non Catholics and even athiests are known to donate to the various Catholic Charities....because near every cent on the dollar goes directly to the needy...
Click to expand...
clarification...
Jewish Charities are the next biggest single religious charity...and they too get more on the dollar donated than most ALL non profits that are secular.

and many, many many other religious charities are out there that do the exact same like those that practice islam take care of the needy in an efficent manner too...have little overhead and get most on the dollar to the poor...unless of course, they are crooks or something,

but there are PLENTY of Secular Crooks and scammers out there too...creating charities for ILL PURPOSES like Jack Abramoff did...only to use the Boy's charity funds to promote his and delay's plans for republicans in politics...
 
In making law currently legislatures are allowed to make allowances for sex especially in consideration of differences in the general physical nature of the sexes. The ERA would have made this as off limits as trying to do the same thing when disitinguishing the races.

Anti miscegination laws are unconstitutional because a black man is to have the exact same legal rights as a white man thus a black man can marry a white woman just as a white man can.

Now laws prohibiting the marriage of people of the same sex remain constitutional because there is not an amendment that says women have the exact same legal rights as a man. Thus the ability of a man to marry a woman doesn't mean a woman has the same rights.

However if the ERA was passed this would make men and women interchangeable in the eyes of the law and thus would automatically protect gender choice in marriage.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Where in the constitution does is state that women are not equal to men? I have no problem with the amendment being passed, but some say the 14th amendment makes it moot, and I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that makes women less than men, is there?

The 14th doesn't help women. It was created to apply to race and ethnicity. Even Ted Kennedy says so. The ERA would have been a 14th for sex and gender. As it is right now the government is allowed to make different laws regarding sex and gender. It this wasn't the case it would be illegal to have different standard for acceptable operations for women in the military. But this is not so.
Click to expand...

I say that this specifically says all people, and does not specify all men. It says all citizens. I know it has been argued that the intent was to make the races equal, yet it says all persons, not all men. So whatever the intent, it makes all persons equal under the law.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, just because courts have made rulings thus, so far, doesn't mean they are right. I will tell you when I believe this will show itself, when there's a new draft. Because there will be a suit filed stating it is unconstitutional to draft men and not women, and they will win, and women will be drafted, and there is going to be a societal upheaval in this country the likes of which we have not seen in some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top