1 John 4:8, NIV: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." ... 1 John 4:8, KJV: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 John 4:8, NASB: "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://www.bibleref.com › 1-John
righhhht... all-pawwful creator o the whoa dam yoo-ni-verse gooda keepis head down, lessen somebody whackim like a mole
onna aww-pawwful cree-a-tor o the who dam yoo-ni-verse? poony li'l me? huh naw just clarificatin you'n
God loves us but now we are being taxed for that divine privilige. God ordered obligation? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A Dark Day at the Supreme Court On the “ministerial exception”: Religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage: https://centerforinquiry.org/press_...us-ministerial-exception-ruling-for-teachers/
I actually agree with the Court about not being forced to pay for contraception. I see it as being same as the cake maker being forced to use his artistic talent to make a cake with his artistic work depicting a subject he disagrees with on religious grounds As for the funding I think that is more shakey. My idea would be to fund every school according to a set amount dependent on the needs of the pupil For religious schools deduct money according to how many hours are used to teach religion. For THAT portion the school has to be funded from its own pocket So those wanting contraception, pay for it yourself. Want to teach religion, pay for it yourself I would also come down like a ton of bricks on any school sneaking religious teachings into the secular portion by defunding the school for one year and paying back any funding already given The cake maker effectively defunds himself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I totally agree, if that is constitutional to begin with. (Is it legal to expose students to religious curricula in a public school, against their will?) Looking at this from the opposite perspective. Consider how the same thing should then apply to women's health care clinics. If I understand correctly, any woman's clinic that offers abortion in addition to routine health maintenance is now being denied ALL federal assistence. (AFAIK, it used to be that only the portion of budget for abortions was witheld). Today, in the south, how many clinics are left that offer comprehensive health care for women? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino...th-clinics-have-lost-federal-funding-n1069591
Not sure about the religious content in public schools. It might range from zero to some type of comparative teaching about ALL religions. I don't have any objection to that concept Personally I don't really agree with the concept of womens clinics/mens clinics. You should have health clinics which treat the health of people. I know, weird right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lol, noo.....just specialization.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
'God-given rights' are precisely what people today call 'human rights'. If you want a list, try the Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf In the past and in many ostensibly enlightened parts of the world today the idea persists that people only have those rights that the Sovereign (the king, the party, the government) grants them. The idea of God-given rights is the idea that some human rights derive from a higher source and can't be taken away from people by edict of the king or by act of government. It's the idea that some rights belong to humans on account of their humanity... or something like that. How is it determined which rights are inalienable human rights? I don't know. Probably in much the same way that belief in God is established for those who believe in God. Attempts to list them, like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights start to look like lists of desires as new ostensible rights are continually added to the list. I'm inclined to think of ethics and theistic religion in much the same way. There's really no more evidence for the existence of human rights as there is for the existence of God. Probably less, since God at least has the cosmological arguments going for him. In both cases the beliefs seem to me to be social constructs of some sort.
A sensible well considered post. In the same way humans invent gods they invent the notion that god gives them certain rights which seem to not make a list in the bible say...The fact is it can only be a government or a human authority installed by vote or grabbing of power that can say what rules shall apply to those in their control. Alex
God given rights are simply the negative rights you have as a natural consequence of being human. You have the natural right to your life, liberty, and property, because those do not infringe on those same rights of others. Barring others violating those rights, you can live without killing others, move about and express yourself without limiting the movement or expression of others, and own the products of your labor without stealing from others. And as a natural extension of these, in the potentiality that others may try to violate them, you have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property with deadly force. You may think deadly force is extreme, but in nature, anyone who can successfully steal from you or censor you has the ability to kill you, otherwise you would have the power to stop them. Common law generally exists to protect natural rights, allowing there to be other recourse than simply killing all threats to life, liberty, or property.
The Natural rights of humans are no different than the natural rights of all living organism. Natural selection does not recognize rights. Common law rights are by agreement only. In a dictatorship there are no common rights, except as allowed by the dictator.
