'don't Impose Your Values' Argument Is Bigotry In Disguise

[MissileMan]

So your basing your bigotry( excuse me fear) of all christians on a handful of kooks?? How open minded of you!! Unbeleivable!!

I never said anywhere that I hate or fear all christians. Why does disagreement have to equate to hate or fear? I could care less what religion you or anyone follows as long as you don't try to impose it on anyone else.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have heard christian beliefs and find most of them incredible. Having no interest in hearing and fear are two different things. I am not afraid of christian beliefs, but the way some of the zealous act on those beliefs is down-right frightening.

People don't usually try to oppress and persecute something they're merely uninterested in. I assume you're not into knitting, but would you try to ban discussion of knitting from public life? Honestly.

 

[Bonnie]

I never said anywhere that I hate or fear all christians. Why does disagreement have to equate to hate or fear? I could care less what religion you or anyone follows as long as you don't try to impose it on anyone else.

Once again.......There is a big difference between rightful public displays of faith and shoving ones faith down anyone's throat, you don't seem to know that difference? To you it equates to removing anything even remotely religious from all public view including an innocous moment of silence in schools, yes id say that comes under the unbrella of paranoia!!!!!!!!

 

[MissileMan]

People don't usually try to oppress and persecute something they're merely uninterested in. I assume you're not into knitting, but would you try to ban discussion of knitting from public life? Honestly.

All things in their place. A public discussion of knitting during the showing of a movie in a theater would be inappropriate. What is the purpose of a church if not to hold public discussions of one's religion?

 

[MissileMan]

Once again.......There is a big difference between rightful public displays of faith and shoving ones faith down anyone's throat, you don't seem to know that difference? To you it equates to removing anything even remotely religious from all public view including an innocous moment of silence in schools, yes id say that comes under the unbrella of paranoia!!!!!!!!

Back the truck up! You have me confused with one of the far right ACLU weenies that I spoke out against earlier in this thread. See post # 147.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

All things in their place. A public discussion of knitting during the showing of a movie in a theater would be inappropriate. What is the purpose of a church if not to hold public discussions of one's religion?

Your first example is an example of creating noise during what is supposed to be a quiet environment. It is a different type of inappropriateness altogether and is therefore a stupid example.

Church is for religious views, sure, but the first amendment rights of free speech apply at all times and are not left behind in the church pew.

 

[MissileMan]

Your first example is an example of creating noise during what is supposed to be a quiet environment. It is a different type of inappropriateness altogether and is therefore a stupid example.

Church is for religious views, sure, but the first amendment rights of free speech apply at all times and are not left behind in the church pew.

And you advocate prayer in a place where learning is supposed to occur. School is a place for teachers to pass knowledge to students not for prayer. You apparently want special priveleges for christian students. I don't see you advocating turning on the PA system (for the accompanying chanting) and allowing muslim children to face mecca and pray several times a day as is done in their religion. I wouldn't be in favor of that either.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And you advocate prayer in a place where learning is supposed to occur. School is a place for teachers to pass knowledge to students not for prayer. You apparently want special priveleges for christian students. I don't see you advocating turning on the PA system (for the accompanying chanting) and allowing muslim children to face mecca and pray several times a day as is done in their religion. I wouldn't be in favor of that either.

It's a moment of silence, dipstick, and every student gets the moment of silence, christian or not. There's no special treatment and there's no endorsement of religion.

 

[musicman]

Hey - I've got an idea! How about we let individual communities decide these matters for themselves, and leave the government, the judges, the lawyers, and the kings out of it? Wouldn't that be COOL?

Oh, wait a minute - sorry. That idea has already been suggested by...wait - don't tell me - oh, yeah - OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!

 

[MissileMan]

It's a moment of silence, dipstick, and every student gets the moment of silence, christian or not. There's no special treatment and there's no endorsement of religion.

You can call it whatever you wish. It has no place in public school with an exception for a moment of silence offered in respect for a faculty member, student, or alumni who has died. If you want prayer sponsored in your kid's school, send them to a religious school, there are plenty to go around. Home schooling is also an option.

How old are you anyways? You react to the frustration of losing an argument like a teenager.

 

[Eightball]

I don't think anyone can go through life without something creating an imposition and possible offending them.

There's a guy on the news that wants some bakery/market owner to take down a picture of GWB that's been hanging on a wall at this establishment for a couple years. The complaining person claims that he is being offended by GWB's portrait, because this particular city locale, went for Kerry in the election. He feels offended, as though GWB is being crammed down his "whatever".

You know, I really don't feel sorry for this chap. I'm tired of this whining and complaining. It seems that these folks forgot the old childhood proverb, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names(portraits) cannot hurt me." Are there presidential portraits hanging in most government buildings? Yes! That's been the norm since the beginning of time. As a staunch conservative, I wasn't miffed by President Clinton's portrait being displayed in my local post office. After all, he's the president. I didn't vote for him, but why should the picture offend me.

Why can't the owner of a business hang pictures of politicians in his establishment. If it offends, then go elsewhere to eat/buy donuts..........etc.

I'm just plain tired of this "thin skinned" reaction of the Left to all things.............and especially their misinterpretation of Church and State separation so that they aren't offended(more like convicted or made guilty).

The humanist manifest is plain..........humans aren't going to any bad place after death..........being bad is making poor choices.............not sin..........before a Holy Creator.

I wonder why Scott Peterson's "poor choice" has gotten him into such deep "Ka Ka". After all, we all make "mistakes" like willfully ending other human's lives........ I wonder what will make us have to own up to individual responsibility for our actions............if everything is just a mistake or poor choice..........? It's hard to believe that anarchy in our society could be initiated by New York Lawyers.........the very profession that gets it's gravy from the law system.

Regards, Eightballsidepocket

 

[MissileMan]

I don't think anyone can go through life without something creating an imposition and possible offending them.

Ain't that the truth!

And I agree with the rest of your post that there are a lot of people who are way too easily offended.

 

[Hobbit]

Oops, just like me to forget, when reading from the beginning of the thread, that there are multiple pages. Formulating more appropriate response...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You can call it whatever you wish. It has no place in public school with an exception for a moment of silence offered in respect for a faculty member, student, or alumni who has died. If you want prayer sponsored in your kid's school, send them to a religious school, there are plenty to go around. Home schooling is also an option.

How old are you anyways? You react to the frustration of losing an argument like a teenager.

I call it a moment of silence, because that's what it is. None of your hemhawing and whining makes it anything other than that.

How would you know how I react to losing an argument, considering I haven't lost this one?

You really need to visit the realm of rationality, you may like it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"MissileMan immediately sensed that the silence was an unclean Christian silence. He slayed all the Christians and the secularists and jihadists made him king for a day."

 

[Hobbit]

All right, Missile, I've had quite enough of this.

First off:

How dare you! How dare you, a person who claims tolerance and equality, lumping all Christians into your insulting, degrading little mold. Your implication that Christian aid workers only give aid to Christians and Christian converts is downright insulting. Christian aid workers give both physical and spiritual aid to people not because of some self-righteous streak they have in them, but because they believe in their hearts that these people will be much better off knowing Jesus. It's an act of love. You sit there thumbing your nose at the whole lot of us because you think you've got moral high ground when, in fact, you are just another drone who has bought into the propoganda being spewed by the secular movement. If you really want to know how a Christian thinks, imagine this: You know, for a fact, that NYC is going to be nuked. You have no idea when, or even if it will be during your life, but you know it will happen. Maybe it'll be in 1 minute, maybe in 1 millenium. Now, if you devoted your life convincing people to leave NYC, it's not because you hate the town. It's because you want the New Yorkers to live. We Christians believe, as a major tenet of our religion, that all non-Christians *will* go to Hell after death, so, as humanitarians and loving people, we try to make the number of people in Hell as small as possible, not for our sake, but for yours. Some, but not many, go about it the wrong way, but those are the ones you usually hear about. However, the Muslims I usually hear about are blowing up our buildings and shooting at our soldiers, but I don't lump them into the 'terrorist' mold and would be accused of bigotry if I did, so stop lumping MY beliefs into your little mold.

Evidently, you see all Christians as trying to ram their beliefs down your throat, but let's take a moment to reflect. Evolution is required learning in most schools and is presented as fact, despite the fact that it is merely a theory widely accepted in secular scientific circles. Whether or not this is what Darwin intended, evolution presented as fact is a decidedly atheistic concept. Despite claims by atheists, atheism *is* a religion that is being endorsed by schools all over the country through this. This is shoving someone else's religion down my throat.

Let's say, for a minute, that the topic of religion had never come up. I'd still like a moment of 'personal time' in a high school every morning. Even as a Christian, I probably wouldn't use it to pray. I'd probably do a little homework, think about things I need to do, or just plain enjoy the silence. High schools are so tense and noisy now that I think it should be used just to ease the mood. I'd even like it if they banned out loud prayer just so nobody breaks the silence. Banning any proposed time in which somebody *could* pray is a violation of their rights to free religion, as you are banning an activity not for its purpose, but for a single, possible use of it. Murders happen, yet guns are not banned because they have many other uses.

Many people, most notably those in the ACLU, have been kicking everything Chrisitian out of the public eye. However, the Constitution, as written (without this 'seperation of church and state' added without voter consent, basically) basically says that the church simply shouldn't be given priority over other organizations. Campaign organizations and charities are allowed to put their stuff up, so why not Christians?

All positive contexts of 'God' are being removed from tellings of our history, including the Declaration of Independance, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the origins of Thanksgiving. However, all negative contexts remain, such as the Inquisition. This oppresses the religion by deliberately painting it in a bad light. It would be akin to erasing all positives of the Roman Empire (aqueduct, mathematics, etc.) and leaving only the negatives (slavery, religious oppression, cruelty) in order to make Rome look really bad. This is an insult to my religion.

Everybody points to Christians as the problem. The fact is that Christians hadn't been viewed in any negative light in the USA until secularists came along. These guys want to get rid of Christianity because it stands in the way of their agenda. They want to cram their views down my throat and are doing so in ways such as labeling Christians as homophobic and hateful, while pointing to conservative voters as ignorant or corrupt. This is what religious oppression is.

While I'm on the topic, Christmas is a federal holiday. You even think of telling me not to celebrate it because it offends you and I'll sue you for violation of my civil rights under federal statute.

Myths and Truths:

The Constitution calls for religion to be completely removed from the government: Myth. The Constitution calls for the government to neithre endorse nor oppress religion, meaning it should be given the same treatment as other organizations. Democrats are allowed to use Democratic Party beliefs when forming their decisions, so why should Christians be barred from using theirs.

Churches should have their non-profit status revoked if they list a political view: False. There are dozens of non-profit groups, such as the ACLU, whose specific purpose is to express political views. As long as churches don't make profits which are paid to the 'owners' of the church, it's a non-profit organization and is tax exempt.

A Christian believes his religion is the only way to Heaven: Truth. It is a major tenet of the Bible. However, this means that a Christian witnessing to you is doing so because he/she wants you to go to Heaven, not because he/she's got a selfish agenda.

Christians are homophobes: Myth. Some are, just like in many other demographics, but Christians as a whole don't hate gays. We just hate homosexuality in much the same way we hate murder, theft, assault, etc. It's a sin, and Jesus taught us to love the sinners, for those are the ones who need him the most. Thus, the rule has always been: Love the sinner. Hate the sin.

Now, if anybody else insults my religion again, everybody duck.

 

[ajwps]

AJPS Wrote:


Firstly, this has the potential of being an interesting conversation...lets keep the tone polite and not get smarmy with eachother. Its unneccesary and counter-productive.

You ask where in the Constitution does it specifically say that the US was based on Judeo-Christian morality...obviously, it doesn't. However...this is a moot point...the Constitution was a document set up to attempt to keep religion safe from the tyranny of government...and the government safe from religion...they specifically avoided using specific religious wording in the Constitution for that very reason...when you remember what they were struggling against when they wrote the document you will understand why.
HOWEVER...
This in no way means that this nation was not founded by Christians who used Judeo-Christian values as their basis...why you and so many others have trouble grasping that is beyond me.
Let's look at some of the Founding Fathers own words:
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction... That these liberties are the gift of God? The bible is the cornerstone for American liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." -John Quincy Adams
"We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our heart." -James Madison
"You can't have national morality apart from religious principle." -George Washington
"Our country was founded on the Gosple of Jesus Christ." -Patrick Henry
These were Christian men, AJPS, no better or worse than men of any other religion...men who felt that the teachings of the Bible had some good points that could be used as a foundation.
They realized however, that MEN were going to be running this nation...and that men always mess things up...especially when religion is involved. They wanted ALL people to be able to practice their own religions...Christian or other...they did not want one faith to have precedence over another...they did not want religious leaders to rule gov't...so they made sure that their founding documents...while based on many of the best sections of Judeo-Christian dogma...was free of being bound to any one religion.
They included, however, the most important section...that all men have rights that are endowed by "Our Creator." Why is this important? Because it states that you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not from the government...not because you are a citizen of the United States...not because a man says so...but because GOD says so...now which God? They don't say...because it doesn't really matter...what matters is that no man can take those rights away.
Fast forward to today...where numerous people would LOVE to remove references like those from our core documents...what does that mean? That your rights no longer come from your Creator...but rather from man...and what a man has given you...another man can take away...hence why the Founding Fathers made sure your rights can never be taken away by a man...because they come from a higher power.
These men were very smart...or perhaps...they were both very smart and very wary of what happens when too many people following one religion get together...we should all be that wary. Nevertheless, the men were Christian...and when they sat down and imagined this nation...the values and morals they invisioned for it came from their Judeo-Christian values, morals, and beliefs....they were just smart enough to word it in a way that left it up to the individual.
***
To give you an overly simplified example of the point I am making here, AJPS...
Lets say a romance novelist happens to have a BA in English Literature. When she writes, she often is inspired to reference in little ways, classic works and personal favorites...Shakespeare, Milton, the Bible, Joyce, Faulkner, Greek and Roman Mythology, etc.
Now, she knows that her basis for her romance novels comes from her classic training...but she is well aware that her target audience isn't interested in reading James Joyce, their are interested in reading a romance...so she makes sure that her references, while obvious to those who are familiar with Joyce...are equally enjoyable and logical to those who have no clue who he is.
Now...she is created literature that can be enjoyed by all...but her foundation is still the classic literature she studied and loved at university.
***
The Founding Fathers were dedicated to making sure that this country could be lived in by all people of all religions...they were dedicated to giving these people all the same rights and privledges...however...they were Christian...and the ideas and values they pulled from, came from, in some part, that influence on their lives.

American Constitution - Religious Freedom Based Upon Christianity?

It’s not uncommon to find a religious Christian criticizing the idea of separating church and state by claiming that religious freedom in America is based not on strict separation but, rather, on Christian ideals. Thus, it is argued, the way to preserve religious liberty is to make government and society more explicitly Christian.

Thomas J. Ramundo, senior pastor at Jackson Free Methodist Church in Michigan, writes in defense of this in The Jackson Citizen Patriot:

Here's a quote of Patrick Henry's: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

That quote is of interest for a couple of reasons. For one, it flies in the face of the current revisionist notion that our country's founders and constitution's framers were not persons who held and were motivated by strong Christian beliefs. If you never have, you might want to do some digging in the personal writings and recorded prayers of George Washington, John Adams and most of their fellow freedom fighters.

Another reason that quote interests me is Patrick Henry's belief that because of America's Christian founding and principles, and "for that reason alone," people of all faiths may worship as they choose in this great land. When you look at freedom of worship today in light of America's diverse religious landscape, you see Henry was right and would probably be proud of how things have shaped up more than two and a quarter centuries later.

There are a couple of serious flaws with Ramundo‘s argument here. First, no one seriously argues that many of America’s founders had strong religious beliefs. What is argued is, first, they weren’t always motivated by religious beliefs that were identical to the beliefs of conservative evangelical Christians today and, second, that being motivated by religious beliefs is not the same as trying to create a government that is based upon religious beliefs. It is strange that people like Ramundo would fail to consider the possibility that devout Christians might want to establish a national government where religious doctrines play no role.

Secondly, if someone is going to make claims about the meaning of the Constitution, it would make more sense to draw on comments from the people who actually wrote and/or supported the Constitution. Patrick Henry was neither. Henry tried to get religion expressed in the Constitution and he failed. Henry tried to prevent the Constitution from being ratified (he was an anti-federalist) and he failed.

Quoting Patrick Henry to prove something about the meaning of the Constitution is not unlike quoting George W. Bush to prove something about the meaning of the Democratic Party Campaign Platform.

 

[MissileMan]

All right, Missile, I've had quite enough of this.

First off:

How dare you! How dare you, a person who claims tolerance and equality, lumping all Christians into your insulting, degrading little mold. Your implication that Christian aid workers only give aid to Christians and Christian converts is downright insulting.

Name one christian relief organization working overseas in areas not traditionally christian that doesn't offer help with one hand and conversion to christianity in the other.

You sit there thumbing your nose at the whole lot of us because you think you've got moral high ground when, in fact, you are just another drone who has bought into the propoganda being spewed by the secular movement.

Change the word secular to christian and you are describing yourself. I formed my beliefs on my own, unlike the sheep of christianity. Makes ya wonder why Jesus called his followers a flock.

If you really want to know how a Christian thinks, imagine this: You know, for a fact, that NYC is going to be nuked. You have no idea when, or even if it will be during your life, but you know it will happen. Maybe it'll be in 1 minute, maybe in 1 millenium. Now, if you devoted your life convincing people to leave NYC, it's not because you hate the town. It's because you want the New Yorkers to live. We Christians believe, as a major tenet of our religion, that all non-Christians *will* go to Hell after death, so, as humanitarians and loving people, we try to make the number of people in Hell as small as possible, not for our sake, but for yours.

So the 4,000,000,000 other people on the planet are all wrong and you are the only ones who are right...how dare YOU?

Evolution is required learning in most schools and is presented as fact, despite the fact that it is merely a theory widely accepted in secular scientific circles. Whether or not this is what Darwin intended, evolution presented as fact is a decidedly atheistic concept.

To my knowledge, scientific school books still refer to it as the "Theory of Evolution", and I imagine that whether it is held up as theory or fact, it is an atheistic concept.

Despite claims by atheists, atheism *is* a religion that is being endorsed by schools all over the country through this. This is shoving someone else's religion down my throat.

Atheism is not a religion, but rather a total lack thereof.

Let's say, for a minute, that the topic of religion had never come up. I'd still like a moment of 'personal time' in a high school every morning. Even as a Christian, I probably wouldn't use it to pray. I'd probably do a little homework, think about things I need to do, or just plain enjoy the silence. High schools are so tense and noisy now that I think it should be used just to ease the mood. I'd even like it if they banned out loud prayer just so nobody breaks the silence. Banning any proposed time in which somebody *could* pray is a violation of their rights to free religion, as you are banning an activity not for its purpose, but for a single, possible use of it. Murders happen, yet guns are not banned because they have many other uses.

Why all the squirming? Why can't you just come out and say that you want your kids to get a moment of silent prayer before school?

Many people, most notably those in the ACLU, have been kicking everything Chrisitian out of the public eye. However, the Constitution, as written (without this 'seperation of church and state' added without voter consent, basically) basically says that the church simply shouldn't be given priority over other organizations. Campaign organizations and charities are allowed to put their stuff up, so why not Christians?

More accurately no single religion given priority over other religions. But I have never and am not proposing the removal of all religious things from the public eye. I am saying, "All things in their place". Aren't there references in the bible about "a time to reap, a time to sow", etc?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

People don't have to accept help from christian organizations if they find the mention of christ so offensive, ya know? It doesn't bother normal people. You're a zealot, missileman, on some ill conceived, christophobic mission of insanity.

 

[Bonnie]

MissileMan]Name one christian relief organization working overseas in areas not traditionally christian that doesn't offer help with one hand and conversion to christianity in the other.

So What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!