ILJ BoardsAutomatic registration has been closed. If you would like to become a member here, please email iljboards@yahoo.com  


Go Back   ILJ Boards > Community > Christian Fellowship

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-25-08, 02:34 PM
Ann's Avatar
Ann Ann is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: GA
Posts: 34,958
Default Religion and politics

This is derived from responses some ppl wanted to make to a thread in Ask.
Grievor asked about people's views re: legalization of same gender unions and expressed his feelings that religion and ideas of morality based on the BIble should not influence laws. You can read the original exchange in Ask this thread is for those who wanted to contribute to a discussion on that subject to be able to do so. I am not copying his posts simply bec I have not been able to reach him for consent to do so and it is ilj policy to respect the right of aperson posting top choose whether they want general discussion and response as happens in CF or response from someone certified in ministry by ilj or an expert such an individual asks to post as in Ask. He chose the 2nd so please keep this discussion to the topic in general not aimed at him personally unless he chooses to come participate in this thread.

Please remember that ilj terms of service apply here specifically "By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. We reserve the right to delete any message, topic, to ban a username, IP address, domain name, or email address for *any reason* that we (the owners of this board) feel is deserved (especially if you repeatedly post argumentative or offending posts).
You also agree that you will not post any messages on our boards that try to persuade others against Christianty, promote a distorted view of the Bible, promote pro-abortion views or the homosexual lifestyle. You may think this narrowminded, but this is our site and if you want to argue, please go elsewhere. That is not what this place is for and never has been." Note this was written by gracie who is the site owner.
__________________
1Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. ... Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. Matthew 25:40 & 45

www.caringhandsministries.com

Last edited by Ann; 08-01-08 at 07:46 PM. Reason: to create a post to start the thread in CF
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-25-08, 08:14 PM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

You misunderstand the intent of the founding fathers if you think that they intended to create a completely secular state. The quote "Separation of Church and State" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists Association of Danbury, Connecticut assuring them quite the opposite.

What the founding fathers did intend was to insure that the government and the church remained separate entities. They did not want to replicate the Church of England, as an example.

But, if you go to Washington D.C. you will see that the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone upon the Supreme Court building. If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see God cited 4 distinct times - and as an argument for the justness of what they did. The Congress didn't waste any time in appointing a Christian chaplain or establishing a National Day of Prayer or a National Day of Thanksgiving to God.

In fact, one of my first posts here (long since pruned away) was to sum up the bios at the National Archives and Records Administration web page on the founding fathers and sum up how many of them were actually members of the clergy. The number was considerable.
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-26-08, 12:19 AM
EazyMack EazyMack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Temecula, California
Posts: 207
Default

Thank you Mr. Flannel. You speak the truth.

But I must also agree with the original post in Ask point about the religious. It is wrong for anyone to condemn anyone else. That is not our place to do so. Religious people tend to cross those lines.

There are a ton of religious folk in Christianity. But not all of us are religious. Some of us are spiritual. For some of us, it's not a religion at all, it's a personal relationship with God. Religion does not get you into Heaven.

That being said, here's what I think of the issue:

I do not wish to meddle with the lifestyles of anyone else. I understand that it is not appointed to me to change people. I cannot transform the heart of another person. While I feel bad for those who do not accept God's invitation to salvation, I in no form begrudge anyone for it. As Jesus loves me, I love. I do not wish to see people damned or condemned. We all have that option to either follow God or follow Satan, there is no in-between, everyone has a god. And it does not make me angry to see a person going the wrong way. It makes me sad because I know that I could easily be going down the wrong path as well. I am grateful for what God has offered me. It does not make me better than anyone.

Along the same lines, as I live in this world but not of this world, the decisions of politicians and judges and the people do not effect what is most important in this life, and that is a ticket to the next life. It merely effects whatever number of years I have left here. However, I am not so selfish to think only of myself. Therefore, it concerns me to see this country going the direction it is going, people plucking more and more God out of it by the day. God is what made this nation great. Give me a better explanation of how this country rose to such great power overnight. Flannel touched on it, I don't need to elaborate.

In summary: we are screwing ourselves if we do not remain "one nation under God."

And this applies to all controversial political issues.

Last edited by Ann; 08-01-08 at 07:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-26-08, 01:32 AM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

Quote:
Why is it wrong? A lot of people are happy because of the few states legalizing it, is it wrong to grant others happiness?
So, by your logic of whatever the Bible says is wrong, is wrong, and what it says is right, is right, apparently because gay marriage, which leads to sex, is a sin, despite it making the gays happy in that they are slowly being treated more equally, it is still wrong? Thats a little harsh, especially from a benevolent god.
It's wrong on 3 counts.

1) If it's a given that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and God is the sovereign Lord of all creation, then by His saying it is wrong, it is wrong. (at the very least, from a Christian perspective)

2) Marriage - at least as it's understood in the West, is grounded in Judeo-Christian religion. It's not the government's place to redefine marriage. If marriage is a Christian institution (and at least in the United States there is a very good case that it is) the government has no more business redefining it than it does mandating who can or cannot pastor a church.

3) The happiness of the homosexual is irrelevant. Having sex with toddlers would probably make some pedophiles happy, but their happiness is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal. Further, Christians oppose divorce in any instance except infidelity. There are lots of couples who are not "happy" in their marriages.

As to the benevolence of God, He said that it's and abomination to Him, but He has not infringed upon the free will of those who wish to practice it. Likewise, He has shown little inclination to stop the natural repercussions of their actions from taking their course. Think of it as telling a child not to touch something hot, and having them do it anyway. They get burned. It's their own fault.
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms

Last edited by Ann; 08-01-08 at 07:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-08, 01:00 PM
Breni Sue's Avatar
Breni Sue Breni Sue is offline
ILJ Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The HOOSIER State!
Posts: 9,295
Default

I think maybe what was being questioned is questioning is whether religion should be used to legislate morality. While homosexuality may indeed be immoral by biblical standards, there should be no legal reason why 2 consenting adults of the same sex cannot marry. Adultery, premarital sex and divorce are considered wrong, yet there are no laws in our country against them.

Not taking sides, just attempting to clarify the question here.
__________________
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
~Romans 8:38-39

Last edited by Ann; 08-01-08 at 07:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-01-08, 07:52 PM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breni Sue View Post
the original post questioning is whether religion should be used to legislate morality. While homosexuality may indeed be immoral by biblical standards, there should be no legal reason why 2 consenting adults of the same sex cannot marry. Adultery, premarital sex and divorce are considered wrong, yet there are no laws in our country against them.

Not taking sides, just attempting to clarify Greivor's question here.

The answer is... the government did not ordain marriage, and as such, has no standing to redefine it. Homosexuals need not to be "married" in order to do a lot of things that married people do.
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms

Last edited by Ann; 08-01-08 at 07:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-01-08, 08:03 PM
Charles's Avatar
Charles Charles is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Cleveland, GA USA
Posts: 1,035
Default

It is true that there are people who do what the Bible says is wrong.That does not make it right to do it. It is not the job of government to legalize or condone sin. It is also not the purpose of goverment to make sin more convenient or to make people happy in their sins. Not that governments in many places including here haven't done that plenty but that still doesn't mean they ought to.
__________________
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature Matthew 16:15

Come visit us at http://www.caringhandsministries.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-01-08, 09:49 PM
Breni Sue's Avatar
Breni Sue Breni Sue is offline
ILJ Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The HOOSIER State!
Posts: 9,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flannel Avenger View Post
The answer is... the government did not ordain marriage, and as such, has no standing to redefine it.
If that is the case, then they should have no right to step in and outlaw same-sex unions either.

Quote:
Homosexuals need not to be "married" in order to do a lot of things that married people do.
However, if one partner dies before the other one, the living partner would receive no death benefits because they would not be considered "family" in the legal sense. If one partner fell ill and needed home care, the other partner would be unable to take leave under FMLA to care for them. If one was in the hospital in a serious situation where only family was allowed to visit, the other one would likely not be permitted to visit or make medical decisions on their behalf because again, they are not family. The list goes on. Homosexuals are asking for the right to marry - or even have a civil union - not just for love or happiness sake, but so that they are protected legally should something happen to the other.

Quote:
It is true that there are people who do what the Bible says is wrong.That does not make it right to do it.
But should it be illegal just because the bible says it's wrong though? (note that I'm not debating or questioning whether homosexuality is a sin). I guess what I'm getting at here is, marriage is not just a Christian institution. People of all religions - and even those who have no religion at all - get married every day. So what one religion considers to be sinful may not be so to another. To outlaw same-sex unions based upon the teachings of one religion is IMO, unconstitutional. In the same sense that it would be unconsitutional to outlaw divorce or sex outside of marriage, or even inter-faith marriage (since many Christian denominations do still deem it wrong).
__________________
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
~Romans 8:38-39
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-01-08, 10:26 PM
Ann's Avatar
Ann Ann is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: GA
Posts: 34,958
Default

One point that needs to be clarified in your answer, Bren, a medical power of attorney and or living will can be name a person who is not related as the one who is to make medical decisions if the person themselves is unable to do so and if the document is properly done a family member who is not the one wth that athority can not step in and superceed. In most states similiar advanced arrangements can be made for funeral services and of course a person can name anyone they choose as life insurace beneficiary.
__________________
1Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. ... Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. Matthew 25:40 & 45

www.caringhandsministries.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-01-08, 10:40 PM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breni Sue View Post
If that is the case, then they should have no right to step in and outlaw same-sex unions either.
Same sex unions aren't outlawed, they're simply not recognized... and the reason that that is, is because the government did not create or ordain marriage - it recognizes unions for tax purposes. And the Church does not recognize homosexual unions as marriage.

It's like the government saying that they'll only hire electricians certified by the union. They don't control the union. They don't set union rules. They can't change the union rules. They can merely recognize that union electricians are certified by the union. It's the same with marriage. The government doesn't define it. It simply recognizes it as a convenient institution by which they can conduct the census and tax people.

Quote:
However, if one partner dies before the other one, the living partner would receive no death benefits because they would not be considered "family" in the legal sense. If one partner fell ill and needed home care, the other partner would be unable to take leave under FMLA to care for them. If one was in the hospital in a serious situation where only family was allowed to visit, the other one would likely not be permitted to visit or make medical decisions on their behalf because again, they are not family. The list goes on. Homosexuals are asking for the right to marry - or even have a civil union - not just for love or happiness sake, but so that they are protected legally should something happen to the other.
Most of those objections can be handled without the government involving themselves through the use of a good lawyer. In fact, many married couples acquire the services of a lawyer because you can't trust the government to carry out your wishes anyway.

Should I ever find a woman willing to marry me, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm not going to let fickle promises from the government protect all those things for me.

But what you don't address, is in the government's meddling, what happens to Christians who refuse to recognize gay marriage? If I own a business are you telling me that I HAVE to recognize a union I find immoral? What about a pastor who refuses to perform a service for a gay couple? What about a church that won't let a gay marriage be performed on their grounds? Are you going to open up all those people to lawsuits simply because of their religious convictions? Are you going to tell them that their religious convictions don't matter because Fred and Tom want to get married?

Further, in states where gay marriage has been enacted, the democratic process has been completely shredded. In both Massachusetts and California it was the courts - not the legislatures or the people who made the decisions. And that should appall a lot of people.

This raises a lot of 1st Amendment questions about whether or not the freedom of religion is going to continue to be respected in America

Quote:
But should it be illegal just because the bible says it's wrong though? (note that I'm not debating or questioning whether homosexuality is a sin). I guess what I'm getting at here is, marriage is not just a Christian institution. People of all religions - and even those who have no religion at all - get married every day. So what one religion considers to be sinful may not be so to another. To outlaw same-sex unions based upon the teachings of one religion is IMO, unconstitutional. In the same sense that it would be unconsitutional to outlaw divorce or sex outside of marriage, or even inter-faith marriage (since many Christian denominations do still deem it wrong).
Marriage, as it is practiced in the United States (and for the most part, countries considered to be "Western") is pretty much in the Judeo-Christian tradition. To say that all religions have marriage may technically be true, it unnecessarily muddies the water. In America, Christianity is an overwhelming majority (According to Wikipedia, which can sometimes be a dubious source, one poll reported that 76% of Americans claim to be Christians). To say that basing a standard for marriage on the convictions of 76% of the population is unconstitutional, I think, is a stretch. It is important to note that the founders of this country did not intend for the first amendment to prohibit the religious from participating in government, but instead was to protect the religious from the government attempting to dictate their religious convictions, as had happened in England. Which, in my view, is precisely what gay marriage advocates are trying to do. They don't like the Church's view of homosexuality, and so, they're looking to the government to force the big mean Christians to change their minds.

The only routes that are open to gay marriage advocates that don't involve persecuting the Church is to press the government to cease to recognize marriage or for the government to recognize any crazy union that some nutty cult comes up with (this would include polygamy, incest, etc etc etc)
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-02-08, 10:25 PM
Breni Sue's Avatar
Breni Sue Breni Sue is offline
ILJ Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The HOOSIER State!
Posts: 9,295
Default

I had a nice, well-thought out reply almost set to go. But then I stepped away to give my son a bath and get him calmed down, and when I came back, my laptop had become unplugged. Now I have to start over. *cries*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flannel Avenger View Post
Same sex unions aren't outlawed, they're simply not recognized... and the reason that that is, is because the government did not create or ordain marriage - it recognizes unions for tax purposes. And the Church does not recognize homosexual unions as marriage.
But what about those who aren't married in a church, or non-Christians who are married by a justice of the peace? To them, it would make no difference whether or not the church recognized their marriage as valid because they aren't Christians. This is why I take issue with religion trying to define what is/is not a legitimate marriage.
Quote:
But what you don't address, is in the government's meddling, what happens to Christians who refuse to recognize gay marriage? If I own a business are you telling me that I HAVE to recognize a union I find immoral?
Well, that would depend on what business you're in and how relevant it is to the situation. For instance, a lawyer is not necessarily obligated to defend a murder case if they strongly believe the person is guilty. But on the other hand, a hospital cannot refuse life-saving surgery to someone because they were driving drunk and the doctor on staff morally opposes it. Or if WIC or Medicaid turned down a mother and child because the mother had the child out of wedlock and the head of staff opposes premarital sex. Just because we find something morally wrong does not always give us the right to impose those morals onto someone else by refusing them service.
Quote:
What about a pastor who refuses to perform a service for a gay couple? What about a church that won't let a gay marriage be performed on their grounds? Are you going to open up all those people to lawsuits simply because of their religious convictions? Are you going to tell them that their religious convictions don't matter because Fred and Tom want to get married?
From what I understand, pastors have always had the right to refuse to marry a couple based on their churches doctine (ex. the couple is currently living together, they aren't church members, or the pastor doesn't feel the couple is ready for marriage). If gay unions became legal nation-wide, I don't see how that would change anything in that sense. They would still retain the right to refuse to marry anyone if their church opposes it. (which why I personally lean more toward civil unions rather than actual marriage for homosexuals. Then the church does not have to get involved at all if they chose not to)

Quote:
The only routes that are open to gay marriage advocates that don't involve persecuting the Church is to press the government to cease to recognize marriage or for the government to recognize any crazy union that some nutty cult comes up with (this would include polygamy, incest, etc etc etc)
I've heard this argument a lot, and I've never really understood the logic behind it. Because one could easily take it to the other extreme by arguing that if we continue to deny gays the right to marry, then the next step would be to deny couples of different races from marrying, different faiths, etc... In either case, the argument IMO doesn't hold water logically.
__________________
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
~Romans 8:38-39
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-02-08, 11:54 PM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

Quote:
But what about those who aren't married in a church, or non-Christians who are married by a justice of the peace? To them, it would make no difference whether or not the church recognized their marriage as valid because they aren't Christians. This is why I take issue with religion trying to define what is/is not a legitimate marriage.
The short answer is that it used to be that the government did not keep the marriage records, but rather the Church did. The government performing marriages and keeping records of them is a fairly recent phenomena in our culture.

Quote:
Well, that would depend on what business you're in and how relevant it is to the situation. For instance, a lawyer is not necessarily obligated to defend a murder case if they strongly believe the person is guilty. But on the other hand, a hospital cannot refuse life-saving surgery to someone because they were driving drunk and the doctor on staff morally opposes it. Or if WIC or Medicaid turned down a mother and child because the mother had the child out of wedlock and the head of staff opposes premarital sex. Just because we find something morally wrong does not always give us the right to impose those morals onto someone else by refusing them service.
I would disagree with you on that count - no person has a right to another person's labor. It makes slaves of the medical community (or whatever service you are saying cannot be denied)... but that's neither here nor there as far as this goes

The better question is, why would you WANT somebody who doesn't like you to treat you? I have visions of unnecessary colonoscopys running through my head at the thought of this....

I think it's more ethical and moral to refuse service to somebody you don't want to deal with because your personal feelings may interfere with either your judgment or your willingness to do for that person all that is necessary. Take for example doctors. We can divide medical problems into 2 categories, Emergency and Not Emergency. In an emergency, the doctor doesn't have time to play 20 questions, he doesn't know you from Adam and probably never will, his job is just to patch you up and save your life. In a situation where it's not an emergency and you're looking for a doctor, don't you want to take the time and effort to find one that you get along with?

Quote:
From what I understand, pastors have always had the right to refuse to marry a couple based on their churches doctine (ex. the couple is currently living together, they aren't church members, or the pastor doesn't feel the couple is ready for marriage). If gay unions became legal nation-wide, I don't see how that would change anything in that sense. They would still retain the right to refuse to marry anyone if their church opposes it. (which why I personally lean more toward civil unions rather than actual marriage for homosexuals. Then the church does not have to get involved at all if they chose not to)
One would hope that that is what would happen. But I hear horror stories from Canada about how their "hate laws" are enforced. And in our litigious society, I don't know that I trust the government to enact a law that doesn't put the faithful in a position where they have to choose between their faith and the law.

Quote:
I've heard this argument a lot, and I've never really understood the logic behind it. Because one could easily take it to the other extreme by arguing that if we continue to deny gays the right to marry, then the next step would be to deny couples of different races from marrying, different faiths, etc... In either case, the argument IMO doesn't hold water logically.
We used to forbid people of different races or different faiths to marry. And logic dictates that if marriage isn't a static definition as defined by the Scripture, then there's no reason you can't let anybody be married.

In other words, if you change the definition/law for Chuck and Harold, what do you say when you wind up with a man who says he's bisexual and wants to marry a woman and a man? If gay marriage is ok, why isn't polygamy ok? Bigamy? Incest? As long as they're all consenting adults does it matter? What's the material difference between a straight man marrying 6 women and 2 gay men getting married? Aren't you really just granting government recognition to whatever union any group of consenting adults wants to join into?

At which point, I have two objections to this.

1) I really have no desire to pay for the ensuing three ring circus via taxes
2) The government can pass whatever laws they like, but they can't make me think something is moral when my religious beliefs say it isn't. And they can't make me give benefits to a "life partner" if I find the concept disturbing to say the least. (they can try, but it's not gonna happen)
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-03-08, 02:39 PM
Ann's Avatar
Ann Ann is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: GA
Posts: 34,958
Default

At least one gay couple has sued a church for refusing to rent them the church for their wedding. I remember reading that but do not know where and will need to do a search to try to find it.

The emergency vs nonemergency care differentiation may work well in a city but it does not work in rural and small town areas. A friend of ours died recently bec the only dr in the area who could have treated her condition refused to do so bec she was a Mexican national tho long time US resident. He stated that he "hated" Mexicans and told her to go back to Mexico and die. Mary and Ruben heard him say that more than once. I am still hurting and angry on that one. I have seen ER care refused to someone because "he looks gay and is probably after drugs" Now indeed this client of Caring Hands does "look gay" but when he came to our office asking Charles to make the hospital treat him he was bruised from mid chest to hips and had at least one rib protruding under the skin at an angle and was clearly in nneed of xrays etc. In a rural area if one wants medical care emergency or otherwise one must deal wth one of avery limited mumber of possible physicians - in our area there are 4 medical practices and quite franklly I would not take a dying skunk to 2 of them bec of the quality of care I have seen.

I strongly believe that performing abortions (a voluntary and planned proceedure) should not be required of someone whose conscious dictates otherwise. However in this area as many rural areas choices for emergency and regular care are limited. One can not pick one's dr based on whether or not they like you or your life or whether you like them. If one wants a dr locally one has to deal with the drs who are in this area. One does not have to like them but one has to use them or plan on driving to Atlanta to be told drs there do not accept nonlocal patients.
__________________
1Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. ... Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. Matthew 25:40 & 45

www.caringhandsministries.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-03-08, 09:54 PM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

But what's to stop these doctors from slipping them a little too much morphine or "missing" a hemorrhage?

It seems to me that forcing doctors to treat people that they don't want to treat is just asking for trouble.
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-03-08, 10:07 PM
Flannel Avenger's Avatar
Flannel Avenger Flannel Avenger is offline
The Great Redneck Hope
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 23,134
Default

It occurs to me that the history of eugenics and involuntary sterilization are precisely a case in point regarding medical treatment. It happened here, and it is happening all over the world. Doctors have power over your life or death while you're in their care. Sometimes that trust is grossly misplaced.
__________________
Quote:
It has always been my contention that there is no sense in being in office if you don't have the courage to do what is right, even if it is the most unpopular position in the world
-Jesse Helms
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bible, government, homosexual, marriage, morality, politics, purpose, religion, role of government, same sex unions

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2001-2010

Avatar art used by permission and is copyrighted by Poul Carlson of DrawShop.com.
Some smilies provided by and are the property of MazeGuy