2A advocates should pray for a full recovery

[noharleyyet]

 

[EKYHunter]

I don’t see this as an example of science denying. The science of how genetic material shapes and forms the human condition - especially the mind is in its infancy.

Folks aren’t denying that a Y chromosome is in fact present or not. But even the best science cannot fully explain how a given version of a Y chromosome results in a range of masculine attributes (some guys beards are thicker than others) let alone explain the resulting neurobiology as it relates to gender and sexuality.

For the large majority it is fairly straightforward and little science is needed. But in a smaller subset there is much that is not understood.

And in the end we are all created in the image of our lord - we should have some humility before we declare fault in his creation.

You are 100% correct. Thankfully we have the Word which tells us how things really are and what truth really is.

 

[4ohSick]

And in the end we are all created in the image of our lord - we should have some humility before we declare fault in his creation.

I'm not quite certain what you're saying with this final part of the post. And maybe the vagueness was intentional, but if I read it the same way as EKYHunter, I have to take some issue with it. I am also a Christian and acknowledge that we are created in the image of God, but we're also living in a broken world which is manifested in many ways in the human body. Many diseases are genetic, but we don't avoid medical intervention for the fear that doing so would be declaring fault in God's creation. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and apologize if I misunderstood your post. I don't feel the need to belabor this point; this thread has gone all over the place and tread precipitously close to being locked I'm sure, but this path has lead to the demise of many a useful thread, so I'll let it go after this.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You are 100% correct. Thankfully we have the Word which tells us how things really are and what truth really is.

In my reading, our Lord would be standing with the LGTBQ communities, the immigrant communities, the urban poor, the people of Ukraine. Love is woven throughout its pages, caring for the outcast is a repeated theme, fighting back against the self-anointed piety of those who called themselves people of the book and used its passages to choose society’s “winners and losers”.

In my read we are told above all else to love all, embrace all, nurture all, and to humble ourselves.

It is with sadness I find so many of my fellow believers taking from these teachings a desire for separation, distain for the “other”, judgmentalness, and a justification of personal wealth without regard for others.

My apologies for the religious sidebar. We will now return to our regular programming.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not quite certain what you're saying with this final part of the post. And maybe the vagueness was intentional, but if I read it the same way as EKYHunter, I have to take some issue with it. I am also a Christian and acknowledge that we are created in the image of God, but we're also living in a broken world which is manifested in many ways in the human body. Many diseases are genetic, but we don't avoid medical intervention for the fear that doing so would be declaring fault in God's creation. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and apologize if I misunderstood your post. I don't feel the need to belabor this point; this thread has gone all over the place and tread precipitously close to being locked I'm sure, but this path has lead to the demise of many a useful thread, so I'll let it go after this.

I was intending to say that every single person has value, every single person has merit. The fact that we are each different is a gift. The fact that someone is born with a different neurobiology than mine does not make them less. That we cannot stand as judges of which people are created worthy and which ones were not. We are each wonderful and blessed creations in our own right regardless of our skin color or our chosen faith or our sexuality.

 

[EKYHunter]

In my reading, our Lord would be standing with the LGTBQ communities, the immigrant communities, the urban poor, the people of Ukraine. Love is woven throughout its pages, caring for the outcast is a repeated theme, fighting back against the self-anointed piety of those who called themselves people of the book and used its passages to choose society’s “winners and losers”.

In my read we are told above all else to love all, embrace all, nurture all, and to humble ourselves.

It is with sadness I find so many of my fellow believers taking from these teachings a desire for separation, distain for the “other”, judgmentalness, and a justification of personal wealth without regard for others.

My apologies for the religious sidebar. We will now return to our regular programming.

Thankfully His word is very clear and we don’t have to question where He stands, Genesis 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9. I agree about derailing and not wanting to have his closed so I’m out.

 

[Irrelevant]

What do you think a reversal of the ruling would do?

I don't think we'll see a flat out reversal of the ruling as that would take the SCOTUS taking the cause up again, but I think we will see a legislative limitation on campaign finance and corporate contributions. Or our democracy will fail.

What portion of "everything" would no longer be "for sale"? Serious q, not sarcasm.

Elections, the public's belief and trust in our democracy...

One more to add, why is the majority view on CU narrow?

Have you read anything from the dissent?

This case is very much a free speech issue and drew on precedent from other 1A cases. The actual details of CU as a case were more concerned with speech/censorship than campaign finance.

That is what the majority said. But if you actually read the dissent or any of the news coverage from the trial, you'll see that 1/2 the country had the forethought to think about the ramifications of such a determination. Sure 5 out of 9 legal minds said the ramifications were worth it, I don't find that as any proof it was right.

There are all kinds of people that find all kinds of things to be unjust and incorrect in our society and with our government, from voting rights, to woke culture, religion, to immigration. This is mine.

For those that seem so intrenched on this topic, here's the ramifications.


And if you like correlations I find this one interesting. It's not causation by any stretch, but I can't help but think they're related.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Thankfully His word is very clear and we don’t have to question where He stands, Genesis 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9. I agree about derailing and not wanting to have his closed so I’m out.

I agree that this is not the place for grand religious debate, and while we apparently disagree I appreciate the respectful manner of the exchange. I wish you well in living God’s path.

As an aside, I would commend to all the book, “a year living biblically”. Worth the read before we settle too firmly into which of the passages are ironclad and which are not.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Thankfully His word is very clear and we don’t have to question where He stands, Genesis 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9. I agree about derailing and not wanting to have his closed so I’m out.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Of course, my username fully embodies the best argument of a MN atheist - “if there was a just and loving god the Vikings surely would have won a Super Bowl by now.”

 

[RobertD]

Sure 5 out of 9 legal minds said the ramifications were worth it, I don't find that as any proof it was right.

I think the crux of our disagreement is probably somewhere around here. If it comes down to "the ramifications" (which I think have been pretty overblown anyways) vs strengthening the first amendment I'm taking 1A every time.

Even considering the ramifications, I have a hard time looking at CU and imagining advocating for the opposite outcome: "Yes, I'd like for the government to be able to prevent private groups of citizens from financially supporting campaigns of their chosen politician." Not for me.

 

[RobertD]

Awesome movie full of amazing dialogue

 

[406dn]

It's been such a long time since I was in a church service. Will a collection be forthcoming? My path has been one that once considered becoming a pastor to being decidedly agnostic.

A central tenant of my faith was Matthew 25:40. Basically, however you treat the least among us, that is how you have treated the Lord.

There are numerous other passages with the same message.

The intolerance of the religious right surrounding human sexuality started my journey to where I am presently. I'm not certain if I owe them gratitude.

As I told our son when he was growing up, it doesn't cost a dime to be nice to someone.

 

[Irrelevant]

"Yes, I'd like for the government to be able to prevent private groups of citizens from financially supporting campaigns of their chosen politician." Not for me.

Prior to CU we had limitations., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce
then in 2002 this passed via with bipartisan support, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
And affirmed in:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC

Only to be undone by CU.

If you don't see that money in politics is a bad thing, then yes, that is were our disagreement starts and ends.

 

[BuzzH]

Might piss off the thumpers but separation of church and state needs to happen in regard to sciences, with the possible exception of maybe social science... probably even in social science.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Might piss off the thumpers but separation of church and state needs to happen in regard to sciences, with the possible exception of maybe social science... probably even in social science.

I think there needs to also be a separation of “social” and “science”.

 

[Perlodid]

Prior to CU we had limitations., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce
then in 2002 this passed via with bipartisan support, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
And affirmed in:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC

Only to be undone by CU.

If you don't see that money in politics is a bad thing, then yes, that is were our disagreement starts and ends.

I feel like these arguments always end up focused on originalist or texturalist views vs pragmatist/living interpretations of the Constitution no matter what. And I can see the point of view where CU is a reasonable decision based on an originalist view but who honestly believes we are better off today with that decision? At what point do we acknowledge the limitations of the Constitution for predicting the extent of money and corporations' influence in politics?

 

[LWC55]

I think there needs to also be a separation of “social” and “science”.

How about money and science? Can we separate those, please!

 

[RobertD]

If you don't see that money in politics is a bad thing, then yes, that is were our disagreement starts and ends.

Never said that

 

[Deleted member 28227]

How about money and science? Can we separate those, please!

Yeah I have a huge problem with that...

Claim
Proof of conspiracy

- Talking about a different virus
- Talking about a different vaccine
- Talking about an individual versus a population
- The event, getting a virus has already occurred.
- Did not ask the question
- Something said years before, which may not reflect current opinion and/or science


I'm not defending the video or Fauci but the claim and the use of this as evidence is ridiculous.

The medical community was wrong about HIV initially, are we going to say that because they were wrong and changed their minds based on the data they observed they are wrong forever forward about anything?