[TheRealVille]

I believe in God, and I am a conservative. But I do not believe religion, any religion, should be involved in governmental decisions, or public schools, or in the court of law. Just can't do anything positive, and just causes turmoil...the opposite of what it is supposed to do.

If conservatives would leave religion out of government, they would have tons more supporters. You wouldn't be able to beat a conservative office seeker if that were true.

[vundy33]

I don't really think it's the religion that causes the problems that we have involving it...I think it's the immaturity of the people on both sides that's really behind the turmoil.

[TheRealThing]

My apologies, I did not mean to infer that religion should be incorporated into government. And when I suggested God had been thrown out of our schools, I meant any reference to Him has been declared unlawful, as is the posting of things like the 10 Commandments in school building hallways. In the meantime, liberals have gotten the courts to make any mention of God illegal by teachers or school administrators, and have even managed to eliminate praying at school for any reason including sports events. Yet, using the guise of the misinterpretation of the concept of "seperation of church and state," creationism has been banned from schools having been declared religion, while they have succeeded in getting the theory of evolution presented as the only credible origin for man's existence. In our courtrooms, as I have outlined in my previous post, to omit God's precepts to judge right and wrong, throws the whole concept of law into chaos. So, when we look for a foundation on which to base our convictions of what we consider to be right and wrong, we must neccessarily turn to the ultimate authority on which the concept of right and wrong rests. My contention, is that authority is God's Holy Word. Otherwise, all we have are the opinions of those making the argument in support of,or in opposition to, a matter. And, as is totally obvious from the deadlock which defines the state of government these days, lawmakers feel they must turn to the courtroom tactic of tearing down the credibilty of one's opponent so that their's becomes the more favorable position, and in this manner they can win. Thus, dirty politics have evolved into today's ultra slam-fest which we all see has become business as usual in the US Congress. And, just as obviously, this sitting president is by no means too good to get his own hands dirty when it comes time to sling the mud.

I am totally okay with leaving God out of the daily workings of govenment as long as opponents of God cannot legislate against Him or His followers out of spite or bias. I don't think opening up daily sessions of the houses of congress with prayer should be considered a violation of anyone's rights any less than denying believers in congress the right to pray is would not be considered a denial of their rights. Nor do I believe we as a nation should have to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, national monuments or the Supreme Court Building.

I'm honest when I say from what I have seen the hatred comes from the left, the problem arises, as it always does, when those on the right respond in kind. They get fed up, and mount a defense. At such times it is nearly impossible to resist pointing out the obvious flaws of their attackers. I don't know why the perception persists but, when the Democats attack they seem to be able to get by with it, and when the Republicans do it they fall into disfavor with the public. And, I know the Republicans are guilty as charged a lot of the time. At any rate, red blooded American voters elect and send Republicans to the House or the Senate of the United States and then the Democrats jump up and impune them at every opportunity, isn't that giving those folks the back of their Democratic hand? But, for this president to get on national TV and upbraid half of the US government, in the persons of our duly elected Republican representatives, is the perfect object lesson on "A house divided against itself, cannot stand." Ever read the Kentucky State Motto? "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"? I tend to trust the wisdom of the great men that have gone on before. Frankly, I'd rather learn by history than by experience. The school of hard knocks is a bad way to get one's diploma.

[WideRight05]

My apologies, I did not mean to infer that religion should be incorporated into government. And when I suggested God had been thrown out of our schools, I meant any reference to Him has been declared unlawful, as is the posting of things like the 10 Commandments in school building hallways. In the meantime, liberals have gotten the courts to make any mention of God illegal by teachers or school administrators, and have even managed to eliminate praying at school for any reason including sports events. Yet,using the guise of the misinterpretation of the concept of "seperation of church and state," they have succeeded in getting the theory of evolution presented as the only credible origin for man's existence. As I have outlined in my previous post, to omit God's precepts to judge is right and wrong, throws the whole concept of law into chaos. So, when we look for a foundation on which to base our convictions of what we consider to be right and wrong, we must neccessarily turn to the ultimate authority on which the concept of right and wrong rests.

My contention, is that authority is God's Holy Word. Otherwise, all we have are the opinions of those making the argument in support of,or in opposition to, a matter. And, as is totally obvious from the deadlock which defines the state of government these days, lawmakers feel they must turn to the courtroom tactic of tearing down the credibilty of one's opponent so that their's becomes the more favorable position, and in this manner they can win. Thus, dirty politics have evolved into today's ultra slam-fest which we all see has become business as usual in the US Congress. And, just as obviously, this sitting president is by no means too good to get his own hands dirty when it comes time to sling the mud.

I am totally okay with leaving God out of the daily workings of govenment as long as opponents of God or His followers are not legislated against out of spite or bias. I don't think opening up daily sessions of the houses of congress with prayer should be considered a violation of anyone's rights any less than denying believers in congress the right to pray is a denial of their rights. Nor do I believe we as a nation should have to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, national monuments or the Supreme Court Building.

I'm honest when I say from what I have seen the hatred comes from the left, the problem arises, as it always does, when those on the right respond in kind. They get fed up, and mount a defense. At such times it is nearly impossible to resist pointing out the obvious flaws of their attackers. I don't know why the perception persists but, when the Democats attack they seem to be able to get by with it, and when the Republicans do it they fall into disfavor with the public. And, I know the Republicans are guilty as charged a lot of the time. At any rate, red blooded American voters elect and send Republicans to the House or the Senate of the United States and then the Democrats jump up and impune them at every opportunity, isn't that giving those folks the back of their Democratic hand? But, for this president to get on national TV and upbraid half of the US government, in the persons of our duly elected Republican representatives, is the perfect object lesson on "A house divided against itself, cannot stand." Ever read the Kentucky State Motto? "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"? I tend to trust the wisdom of the great men that have gone on before. Frankly, I'd rather learn by history than by experience. The school of hard knocks is a bad way to get one's diploma.

Good post, tell me what you think the logic is about the bolded. It just confuses me, they say to ban God in schools and only teach evolution...

But yet most of these people call themselves Christians, claim to believe in the existence of God, and/or attend Church on a regular basis.

[TheRealVille]

Good post, tell me what you think the logic is about the bolded. It just confuses me, they say to ban God in schools and only teach evolution...

But yet most of these people call themselves Christians, claim to believe in the existence of God, and/or attend Church on a regular basis.

These christians realize that America is not a theocracy. I don't want religion taught in schools, because if you allow one, you will eventually have allow them all. I want no religion(any kind) taught in schools, teach that at home and church.

[TheRealThing]

Good post, tell me what you think the logic is about the bolded. It just confuses me, they say to ban God in schools and only teach evolution...

But yet most of these people call themselves Christians, claim to believe in the existence of God, and/or attend Church on a regular basis.

My most honest answer. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is willing to offend others by taking a stand for the cause of Christ. Let me demonstrate that point with the following illustration; Everybody in their right mind knows and believes in their heart, without equivocation, that if they were to step off the observation deck of the Empire State Building they would plummet 1250 feet to their death. Nobody doubts this fact, as a result, this surity of certain death has made true believers out of every rational man and woman with regards to that particular concept. Not every man is quite as sure, however, what the outcome of partial disobedience to God would be, or if He would really be offended by those that are somewhat ashamed of Him when the peer pressures of the various segments of our society are present. Liberal teachers, college profs and certainly federal judges and legislators, among the most powerful men of today's world, will laugh all but the strongest men of faith to scorn when in the confines of the senate chambers or the college faculty room. To say nothing of the lunch table at work, in the breakrooms of factories or the construction sites of the world. I will say that it isn't hard to declare the truths of the Almighty God for those who believe in Him with the same surity all men believe in the concept of falling from a great height though.

King David of Israel is referred to in scripture as a man after God's own heart. I believe God reveals Himself more fully to those that worship Him and love Him the most.

[TheRealThing]

These christians realize that America is not a theocracy. I don't want religion taught in schools, because if you allow one, you will eventually have allow them all. I want no religion(any kind) taught in schools, teach that at home and church.

Would it shock you if I told you we agree 100% on this? My criticisms of the school room battle ground are based on the fact that the liberal agenda is taught in the classroom for undisputed fact. Here again, the liberal has gotten the courts to pass laws to force the rest of us to this end. We are bound by law to teach evolutionism and are banned by law from teaching creationism. Since neither view can be proven by conventional means how does a court rule in such matters? Bias anyone? I would just remind you, evolution to this day remains anything but proven, as does global warming. It's this liberal indoctination in their beliefs, I oppose. See, the hypocracy of the liberal activists allow for teaching those two theories along with the concepts of social justice in the classroom. But, they insist on excluding creationism as a possible origin for man and the universe around him. By all means, let's let the church and Mom and Dad teach their children the things of God. I'm all for it. But, let's be equally pragmatic when it comes to teaching concepts and theories such as those mentioned as fact, when they have yet to be proven.

[TheRealVille]

Typical RV posting. You tell somebody that they are wrong and it turns out that you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about, so you start with the personal attacks instead of just admitting that you were mistaken.

It matters to the Catholic Church because they will be paying for things like the morning after pill, which it considers a form of abortion. What liberals seem unable to understand is that nothing in life is free - somebody has to pay. Insurance companies will not be providing anything free - they will raise the premiums that they charge their customers to cover their costs. There is a consitutional issue involved but liberals seem to focused on themselves to get worked up over somebody else's constitutional rights being trampled.

Which is more expensive, birth control or a pregnancy? If you are factoring birth control over the cost of the pregnancy it would stop, costs will go way down. Insurance companies would save money. It's just like an insurance policy I used to have. They would cover preventive measures at 100%, because they understood that they saved money in the long run. I can't believe that you hadn't already thought of this, Hoot. You gonna admit you were wrong?

[Hoot Gibson]

Which is more expensive, birth control or a pregnancy? If you are factoring birth control over the cost of the pregnancy it would stop, costs will go way down. Insurance companies would save money. It's just like an insurance policy I used to have. They would cover preventive measures at 100%, because they understood that they saved money in the long run.

Right on cue with the administration's spin.

If it saved insurance companies money to offer free contraceptive services to their customers, don't you think that they would have already done it to maximize their profits or to lower their own costs? Use your head and stop parroting the party line.

[TheRealVille]

Right on cue with the administration's spin.

If it saved insurance companies money to offer free contraceptive services to their customers, don't you think that they would have already done it to maximize their profits or to lower their own costs? Use your head and stop parroting the party line.

Hoot, even you can understand that it is cheaper for an insurance company to offer birth control than to pay for the pregnancy. A years worth of birth control, $480 bucks. One pregnancy, $10,000 to 15,000.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, even you can understand that it is cheaper for an insurance company to offer birth control than to pay for the pregnancy.

Please, RV, you are making yourself look silly again. So, what you are saying is that Obama is so smart that he is mandating a policy that will force insurance companies to do something that will actually lower their cost of doing business? Really? Are you that gullible?

How many women who are employed full time, get pregnant, and have no objection to using a morning after pill to terminate their pregnancies are going to go without because they cannot afford the pill? How many women who are employed full time by companies that do not pay for their contraception and who want to avoid pregnancy are going to be unable to pay for it themselves?

If your answer is the correct one (very few), then maybe you can see the logical weakness of the Obama administration's argument that their new mandate will save insurance companies money. Then maybe not...

BTW, I am at home waiting for a doctor's appointment in case you are wondering. So don't expect ridiculous posts like your last few to go unchallenged.

[LWC]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/...done-deal/

Sad day in politics.

[LWC]

^I wish I could find another link, but I can't.

[TheRealVille]

Please, RV, you are making yourself look silly again. So, what you are saying is that Obama is so smart that he is mandating a policy that will force insurance companies to do something that will actually lower their cost of doing business? Really? Are you that gullible?

How many women who are employed full time, get pregnant, and have no objection to using a morning after pill to terminate their pregnancies are going to go without because they cannot afford the pill? How many women who are employed full time by companies that do not pay for their contraception and who want to avoid pregnancy are going to be unable to pay for it themselves?

If your answer is the correct one (very few), then maybe you can see the logical weakness of the Obama administration's argument that their new mandate will save insurance companies money. Then maybe not...

BTW, I am at home waiting for a doctor's appointment in case you are wondering. So don't expect ridiculous posts like your last few to go unchallenged.

Hoot, it's called preventive medicine, and insurance companies would be glad to pay for pills over pregnancy costs. That's why my insurance paid 100% of a $6800 birth control procedure. They knew would it save them money in the long run. They didn't have to, my insurance was set up on 80%/20%. Anything preventive, they did at 100%.

I was getting ready to ask if you were at the office, wasting my money?

[LWC]

^Oh my!

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, it's called preventive medicine, and insurance companies would be glad to pay for pills over pregnancy costs. That's why my insurance paid 100% of a $6800 birth control procedure. They knew would it save them money in the long run. They didn't have to, my insurance was set up on 80%/20%. Anything preventive, they did at 100%.

I was getting ready to ask if you were at the office, wasting my money?

Yeah, I assumed that you were. That is how people who support totalitarian policies think. The Soviet Union could not have existed without people like you squealing on their neighbors for criticizing their oppressive government.

So, answer the question. Do you think that the people who run insurance companies are so stupid that they did not think about offering free contraceptive and abortion services (morning after pill) before Obama mandated it and explained to them that the mandate would save them money?

And do you think people who work full time would fail to use contraception unless Obama forces their insurance companies to provide it to them "free?"

It's quite ironic that people like you who object so much to what they see as religion intruding upon their lives enthusiastically support government intrusion into every aspect of people's lives. It really is illogical to demand total freedom from religion on the one hand and clamor for a nanny state on the other.

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, I assumed that you were. That is how people who support totalitarian policies think. The Soviet Union could not have existed without people like you squealing on their neighbors for criticizing their oppressive government.

So, answer the question. Do you think that the people who run insurance companies are so stupid that they did not think about offering free contraceptive and abortion services (morning after pill) before Obama mandated it and explained to them that the mandate would save them money?

And do you think people who work full time would fail to use contraception unless Obama forces their insurance companies to provide it to them "free?"

It's quite ironic that people like you who object so much to what they see as religion intruding upon their lives enthusiastically support government intrusion into every aspect of people's lives. It really is illogical to demand total freedom from religion on the one hand and clamor for a nanny state on the other.

You have not saw one post by me saying I support this move by Obama. I'm just telling you how my insurance thought about birth control. They were totally for paying for it. They paid for all birth control, pills and the procedure. They understood the savings.

[Hoot Gibson]

You have not saw one post by me saying I support this move by Obama. I'm just telling you how my insurance thought about birth control. They were totally for paying for it. They paid for all birth control, pills and the procedure. They understood the savings.

You defended Obama's policy by repeating the administration's bogus argument that it is cheaper for insurance companies to offer contraceptive services, including the morning after pill, than it is to provide insurance for children.

You think that you can consistently defend this would-be dictator's unconstitutional actions and then claim that you are not supporting them, but you are not dealing with third graders here. I am sure that even you can now see how illogical it is to compare the cost of contraception for a single employee to the cost of paying for all of the costs related to a pregnancy and resulting child. It is a false argument because very, very few employees decide to forego contraception because it is not a covered expense - yet you posted Obama's position on the subject as your own without giving it a second thought.

Now, answer your own question. Are you going to admit that you were wrong?

BTW - your insurance company is not paying for contraceptive services - you and your employer are, assuming that you are not paying 100 percent of the premiums.

[TheRealVille]

You defended Obama's policy by repeating the administration's bogus argument that it is cheaper for insurance companies to offer contraceptive services, including the morning after pill, than it is to provide insurance for children.

You think that you can consistently defend this would-be dictator's unconstitutional actions and then claim that you are not supporting them, but you are not dealing with third graders here. I am sure that even you can now see how illogical it is to compare the cost of contraception for a single employee to the cost of paying for all of the costs related to a pregnancy and resulting child. It is a false argument because very, very few employees decide to forego contraception because it is not a covered expense - yet you posted Obama's position on the subject as your own without giving it a second thought.

Now, answer your own question. Are you going to admit that you were wrong?

BTW - your insurance company is not paying for contraceptive services - you and your employer are, assuming that you are not paying 100 percent of the premiums.

I didn't repeat anything. I just posted my own experience with the insurance/birth control thing. No, I will not say I was wrong, because I wasn't. Apparently, in your case, I am dealing with a 3rd grader. Whether you realize it or not, I own you in these political discussions.

[Hoot Gibson]

I didn't repeat anything. I just posted my own experience with the insurance/birth control thing. No, I will not say I was wrong, because I wasn't. Apparently, in your case, I am dealing with a 3rd grader. Whether you realize it or not, I own you in these political discussions.

:hilarious: Yeah, that is quite a shock to me.

[TheRealVille]

:hilarious: Yeah, that is quite a shock to me.

:Thumbs: One day it will finally dawn on you. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

Does your insurance pay for your prescriptions, Hoot?

[Hoot Gibson]

Does your insurance pay for your prescriptions, Hoot?

I don't remember. I think that I have a prescription card that requires a small co-pay but I am not sure. My wife is picking up a couple of prescriptions for me this afternoon. It's been more than 4 years since I last visited a doctor, so my wife is the family expert on my medical benefits. :biggrin: