Which religion would you sentence ISIS to join?

[Aoi Magi]

How about the religion called "HUMANITY"

[watchamadoodle]

Also, two nice options would be Snake-Handling Jesus Freakism or Petrol-Drinking Jesus Freakism.

I was thinking of forcing them to become Yazidis or Shiites so their comrades would kill them... but forcing them to handle rattlesnakes... that's the perfect religious rehabilitation.

[Losty]

I chose Jehovah's Witness because it's seems like the best punishment for them.
I do second the Heaven's Gate comment, though.

---

I'd like to change my vote, I think they should all convert to "Heavens Gate" and attempt to return to the mothership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_...s_group%29

^this

Also, two nice options would be Snake-Handling Jesus Freakism or Petrol-Drinking Jesus Freakism.

Oooh I should have read the whole thread before voting.

[robvalue]

How about the Knights who say "ni"? They seem alright.

[Losty]

I don't think so. I don't want any Islam fudging up the awesomeness.

[emilynghiem]

Liberal Progressivism! ... or something else I am working on right now.

I dunno CristW, the Democrats are already mandating health care as their own Shariah law that everyone must follow or be penalized as an infidel. Adding the Jihadists to that...might expose them!

[However I WOULD add the Muslim constitutionalists, tea party and patriots to the Democrats. they won't listen to Christiann consitutitionalists about democratic principles, but since they WORSHIP Muslims, maybe they will accept some checks and balances from Muslim leaders, just not Jihadists who are even worse about bypassing due process and acting unilaterally]

[FatAndFaithless]

I dunno CristW, the Democrats are already mandating health care as their own Shariah law that everyone must follow or be penalized as an infidel.

Wow. I thought the most ridiculous thing you've said was that homosexuality is a condition needing to be fixed, but that's pretty fuckin' out there.

[emilynghiem]

I chose Jehovah's Witness because it's seems like the best punishment for them.
I do second the Heaven's Gate comment, though.

---

^this

Also, two nice options would be Snake-Handling Jesus Freakism or Petrol-Drinking Jesus Freakism.

Oooh I should have read the whole thread before voting.

Yes, I agree on both
1. I believe the Muslims need to recognize Constitutional laws and maybe Buddhism as given by God to add to Christianity/Jewish/Muslim which they already recognize. But the Jihadists need a bit stronger dose of the nonviolence thing with FORCED unity that only JW can bring in Christ. If anyone can hold them to comply (or have them begging to be killed) it is those JW killing them with kindness, handouts and lectures.

2. As for groups I MOST regret leaving off the list:

A. Scientology (how did I MISS this one??? someone spank me)

B. Biblocality with Troy Brooks/Parture
the whole reason I found this forum, so of course, I must pay tribute

I would vote for JW keeping ISIS in its place. Any time out would be hanging with Parture and his trick questionnaire to get into his website. And only if you can get in, would you be allowed to get back out = torture!

---

I dunno CristW, the Democrats are already mandating health care as their own Shariah law that everyone must follow or be penalized as an infidel.

Wow. I thought the most ridiculous thing you've said was that homosexuality is a condition needing to be fixed, but that's pretty fuckin' out there.

Hi FatAndFaithless
That's because I DIDN'T say that and don't believe it at all.
Especially if you DON'T believe in discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual, you would treat them the same way.

So the same way some people born homosexual go through healing and come out homosexual -- some people born heterosexual go through healing to come out heterosexual.

one friend I met online went through healing and THEN came out transgender.

So why wouldn't I be supportive of both possibilities?

What if someone comes out bi or straight, or whatever,
after going through healing and accepting their true self.

FatFaithless are you insinuating I should only support my friends who come out gay? And the others, discriminate against them for coming out heterosexual? what?

What about Chirlane McCray wife of NY Mayor De Blasio.

Just because she identifies heterosexual now, am I supposed to deny her identity? Or deny that she identified lesbian before that?

Are you requiring me to CALL her a liar if she describes herself that way?

BTW I am a registered active Democrat, prochoice all the way.
So if people choose to come out as 'whatever' I support that 'whatever'

it is not for ME to decide for my own political agenda what someone
identifies as, it is my duty as a Constitutionalist to protect their beliefs and interests as I would defend my own, whatever beliefs they have.

Sorry to be so inclusive, i hope that doesn't scare or offend you.

[CristW]

Liberal Progressivism! ... or something else I am working on right now.

I dunno CristW, the Democrats are already mandating health care as their own Shariah law that everyone must follow or be penalized as an infidel. Adding the Jihadists to that...might expose them!

[However I WOULD add the Muslim constitutionalists, tea party and patriots to the Democrats. they won't listen to Christiann consitutitionalists about democratic principles, but since they WORSHIP Muslims, maybe they will accept some checks and balances from Muslim leaders, just not Jihadists who are even worse about bypassing due process and acting unilaterally]

Wow. No, the Affordable Care Act was a compromise by democrats and the conservative heritage foundation. Romneycare was an earlier version and both care packages are attached to private corporations.

The real goal of the democrats is for a hybrid of SINGLE PAYER...not the current ACA. Of course, Pres. Obama will defend it because when he leaves office he wants something attached to his accomplishments. ACA is really his baby but the future democrats will want a hybrid SINGLE PAYER system which allows some private entities involved in some manner.

Remember, it's all done to solve the Free Rider problem just ask Mitt Romney.

[emilynghiem]

Wow. No, the Affordable Care Act was a compromise by democrats and the conservative heritage foundation. Romneycare was an earlier version and both care packages are attached to private corporations.

The real goal of the democrats is for a hybrid of SINGLE PAYER...not the current ACA. Of course, Pres. Obama will defend it because when he leaves office he wants something attached to his accomplishments. ACA is really his baby but the future democrats will want a hybrid SINGLE PAYER system which allows some private entities involved in some manner.

Remember, it's all done to solve the Free Rider problem just ask Mitt Romney.

the compromise was not being able to make the public option voluntary and get it paid for,
so having to work out a pay off for insurance companies in exchange for mandating everyone buy insurance.
thus this comes across to conservatives like TERMS of
a "business deal" between insurance and govt, but signing CITIZENS names to it as forced to buy under preset conditions we weren't privy to negotiating and voting on

This is NOT agreed upon by the "Heritage foundation" which
a. was NOT the plan passed as ACA
Search prospect.org for no-obamacare-wasnt-republican-proposal
b. in previous forms was ALSO "voted down" anyway and NEVER got through because of Constitutional limits on federal govt
it only got through this time because of dealings with the insurance corps, and then whatever weird thing happened with Judge Roberts where he rewrote his opposing opinion and flipped the other way.
I don't know ANY conservatives who agree with that, and most call for impeachment or other check on that decision that doesn't represent any of them. [by looking at both right to health care as a belief equal to states rights, then it makes sense that Congress was split almost 50/50 on the vote and the Courts ruling was 4-5 almost half and half. But it is still discriminatory to put one belief over the other. the legislation needed to be revised to be by consensus if both beliefs are going to be included and balanced equally, and this was not, it was clearly tipped in favor of one side's beliefs.]

It is basically against conservative beliefs to push something THIS personal, as mandating buying insurance, through the FEDERAL level
and was a compromise to pass it on a STATE level that is still unpopular with conservatives who even see THAT as a mistake and want to keep it private.

To call this a compromise is an understatement. it is a violation of fundamental beliefs, similar to passing prolife laws federally and excluding prochoice.

Very very few of the conservatives I know agree to give up their personal liberties in health care up to federal govt without either (a) voting on it personally or (b) passing a Constitutional Amendment agreeing to give Federal govt that authority; most of the traditional conservatives I know only go along with this "under the condition that it get repealed or dismantled" and don't consent to it per se.
some of my liberal Republican friends tolerate or endorse it as some kind of workable starting base to reform without rejecting it.

What I've come to understand after struggling to figure this conflict out:
both the "right to health care" is a belief and "states' rights" are a belief held sacred to the people who prescribe to them.

so technically it is unconstitutional to put the creed of one group over the other. There should be an AGREEMENT NOT a compromise.

Otherwise, both sides got violated equally, neither got what they wanted.

what I propose is to recognize states rights as the deciding level, not federal, so the mandates and penalties are removed if states don't agree to them. Only if states/people AGREE to the ACA then you participate and take responsibility for reforming/funding it and making it work.

I would recommend that states can let the parties organize the options for people to participate in voluntarily. I would let Democrats take over and fix the ACA since the Democrat leaders passed it, and register enrollees per state. For more effective ways to fund health care: i would look into reforming prison budgets first, and also the VA and immigrant registration and services, and medical schools and campuses to create public service internships combining educational scholarships with public service.

If Republicans and others want to opt in and choose it, that should be a free choice. But equally leave it open for other parties to form their own alternatives *without penalty or deadline/regulations* let the groups decide their own standards that satisfy their membership for those who consider this a free choice and private sector responsibility. Some people are already using "health care accounts" instead of insurance.

It is consistent to demand that people NOT push their costs or their ways onto others, but NOT the business of federal govt to dictate to people how to manage financial and health care decisions "unless that is your belief."
Federal Govt has no authority to make people change their beliefs, so only if people CONSENT to compromise their beliefs is this constitutional. (For example if Atheists agree to "let it go" that God is mentioned in pledges/ceremonies/oaths/money etc. then that is constitutional to allow for free exercise of religion through govt even if it is compromising their own beliefs. but this cannot be FORCED on them or it's a violation.)

NOTE: If you are a literal constitutionalist and have to see some COURT pass these interpretations before they are law, that's fine I understand it isn't official yet. But the first step is to establish a public agreement on how to handle these beliefs, and then the govt system can be used to formalize such an agreement. I'm still working on even getting political beliefs RECOGNIZED as creeds/religions under the First/Fourteenth Amendments among citizens. If there is agreement to treat them equally as creeds, this can be take to govt leaders to work out those issues. if the people don't even agree, how can the govt ever represent the people?