garnet - i don't know or particularly care what mel gibson's politics are, i started this thread because i found the article humorous.

i find it telling that because an individual has been in the news for his stated religious convictions the first and only thing you can point out is that he will probably infringe upon your right to choose. you didn't take the time to think that maybe he finds abortion morally abhorrent but doesn't believe it is an issue for legislation. sort of like John Kerry and many christians.

like i said, i don't know or care about what gibson would do if somehow he were magically made POTUS, i just think it's interesting to see where your thought process takes you.

Ah, but freedom of religion *is* freedom from religion, once one gets into a government office. It's pretty blindingly obvious that the Government was never intended to favor any specific religion, and that this doesn't just apply to various xtian sects. Jehovah's Witnesses are well within their rights to show up at my door at 9am on a Sunday, and I am well within my rights to answer the door with a pentagram drawn in ash on my forehead and stage-blood spattered over my shirt. That is a private affair (and quite entertaining, at that). However, the issues arise when the state and/or state-run organizations (such as public schools) begin to enforce religious beliefs as law.

The Catholic religion (and most others) forbids murder too. Should laws against that be repealed because they are "religious" in origin? :eyebrow:

Speaking on murder itself, I don't think that's religious in nature. That's just good sense for a community as a whole. Otherwise, extortion could be protected by law...that 10% tithing business is little more than religiously sanctioned extortion. Pay up and you help guarantee your place in heaven. Don't and it counts as a little black mark against you when you're facing St. Peter.

Are you in communication with the IRS?

I think it'd be more accurate to say they're in communication with me. :ninja:

Lookout--

Almost every single article you post is from various right-slanted websites about politics. You always claim you post them because they're "humorous" or "interesting," yet they always turn into some form of political debate and/or discussion on this forum. I'm sure you expect that by now.

If you post an article about Mel Gibson possibly running for office, people are going to want to discuss his politics--which may include his stance on abortion. Nobody's just going to sit there and pat you on the back for posting a "funny" article.

You are obviously pretty far right on most political issues. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not. If you don't want people disagreeing with your acceptance of these articles you post, perhaps you shouldn't post them at all.

What I've read so far of the Mel Gibson religion thing is that the church he belongs to is called First Family. It seems that their greatest divergence from Catholicism came with them refusing to follow Vatican II(tm).

And his dad is nuts.

YMMV

Edit:

If he can be as strongly religious in his personal life as we are led to believe and still make the movies, taken as a whole, that he makes then I'm thinking that he could probably do the same thing in office.

The idea behind separation of church and state isn't to look at all religious laws and do the opposite. It is to make laws on their own merits, without redard to religious laws. Murder as a law predates all current religions, possibly all religion. It isn't on the books because of the Bible.

So, hypothetically, if we could find evidence of, say, the early Egyptians or another culture B.C.E. condemning abortion (or perhaps condemning punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, to account for medical advances) as wrong, then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

if you've actually ever read the book, you would know that is not how tithing works.

No. I also don't support reimplementing Hammurabi's Code. It isn't the age of the muder law that's important, it's the nonreligious reasoning behind it. Anyway, Roe vs Wade isn't based on religious reasoning, but most of the agitation to reverse it is.

I agree that most pro-lifers believe what they do because of religious reasons. But do you at least agree that there *could* be an anti-abortion law based on the same reasoning as the murder law ("better for society") and not the "because God says so" reasoning?*


*FWIW, I'm one of those personally-pro-life-legally-pro-choice fence sitters. I very strongly believe that abortion should never again be illegal in this country.

Yes, there could be such a law. But like someone here said, the vast majority of arguments from pro-lifers are of the "God says so" variety. It's much more difficult to argue that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want is somehow "good" for society. In fact, I think if everyone looked at the issue without clouding it with religion or other personal beliefs, they would agree that having unprepared, ill-equipped people raising the next generation is most likely NOT good for society in general.

*Grabs a bag of popcorn and a joint and settles in for the fireworks display*

Ahh that ol'favourite the Abortion debate. It's one of those unwinnable debates precisely because the one side argues from a sociopolitical standpoint and the other from a moral/theological standpoint. Each side is moving along an entirely different set of rails and as such cannot meet.

Go garnet! Right there with'ya

*stubs out joint and opens the popcorn*