Pro-Christian Legislation vs. Anti-Christian Legislation

[Coloradomtnman]

Despite a recent decline, Christians (or people who define themselves as Christians) make up 77% of the population of the United States!

There are many, very powerful Christian organizations that wield millions of votes, millions of dollars of potential campaign donations, and extremly poweful lobbies in DC. Are you curious as to how many? Google it. You'll be suprised! And many of these organizations' goals are to infiltrate public office and make our secular government a Christian theocracy. Just check out some their websites like: EAGLECROSS ALLIANCE POLITICAL NEWS AND RESOURCES FOR THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

I did several searches for powerful atheist, agnostic, or other anti-religious political organizations and guess how many I discovered? None. Oh, there were many little organizations, but they weren't lobbies or political or powerful unlink the Christian organizations described above.

So, why then do Christians so frequently play the victim? Is it because of anti-Christian legislation?

The only legislation I could find that could be inferred as anti-Christian was hate crime and hate speech laws. Apparently, if such legislation passes, if a pastor preaches against homosexuality and one of his flock goes out and assaults a homosexual or a transgender person, that pastor can be charged with hate speech. Well, at least, that's what the Christians claim who oppose the legislation. How legitimate that claim is I haven't been able to verify, but it smacks of the unfoundedness of the Christian belief that the government will force churches to marry homosexuals if we allow same-sex marriages.

I thought, "Well, why don't these non-Christian elements try to outlaw Christianity?" Then it occurred to me: because they support freedom of religion. Now, why is that? Because they are the minority in this country. If they didn't support freedom of religion, the Christians who are by far the majority would outlaw those of differing or no religious beliefs! Of course! That's why Christians fled to the New World in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

So, then I thought, "Maybe there is historic precedence for anti-Christian legislation." I researched that branch of thinking and.... Nope. In fact, I found lots of laws that were based on Christian belief i.e. anti-sodomy laws, can't work on Sundays, etc. etc. Many of these laws have been overturned and others are no longer enforced except to push political agenda. Some of those laws are discussed here: American lawbreaking: Illegal immigration. (1) - By Tim Wu - Slate Magazine

I have read posts by many people on this forum about how Christianity imposes itself on others through legislation. "What legislation?" the Christians ask. Well, here you go:

#1. Of course! Proposition 8 in California, and the many, many other such campaigns and laws across the country which haven't yet been overturned (unlike Iowa, surprisingly). This type of legislation is overwhelmingly proposed and supported by religious organizations and voters. They try to say that its a moral issue, but non-believers don't care about homosexuals or the sanctity or definition of non-Christian, non-religious based ideas. And yet, no matter how many times you tell Christians that they won't have to get married to the same-sex, or that the government won't force churches to marry same-sex couples, they won't believe you.

#2. The Personhood bills which are a newly and thinly disguised abortion ban campaign. The constant threat to a woman's right to choose seems an endless battle. And no matter how many times you tell Christians that they can choose not to get abortions, they still try to make abortions illegal. There is always a new threat to Roe v. Wade, for some reason, I dont' know why.

#3. Euthanasia. Its only legal in Washington and Oregon, and only recently. If this was a moral issue, there would be no opposition, but, unfortunately for all those dying in agony and with little quality of life despite their wishes to pass on, its a religious issue. God doesn't forgive suicide even if it is humane.

#4. Here's something for you Christmas Warriors out there: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847. Its innocuously worded, but the implications are far-reaching. Basically this bill extends governmental protection to Christmas and Christians against that awful, insidious enemy of true-believers everywhere: "bigotry"

So, what aren't Christians allowed to do: Teach creationism and intelligent design in public schools, lead children in prayer in public schools, publicly expound their hatred of those who are different from them, and... what else? Is that it? If you can think of more, please, post them in response.

Okay, what are non-believers not allowed to do because Christians don't like it: get married if they're gay (whether they are Christian or not), possibly lose you're right to choose if you're a woman, you can't choose to die if you're terminally ill and suffering, and, you have to allow Christmas to be celebrated and not be bigotted toward Christians if you live in Iowa (which are really big threats to Christianity).

And this is just the legislation-ways that Christianity dominates this nation. There is also the constant threat that Christians will overrun government and that this nation will become a theocracy despite separation of church and state. Obviously many Christian groups (extremists no doubt) believe that this country was founded on Christian principles and should be a Christian-governed nation, despite the Constitution and the history of the fates of theocracies: revolution and collapse.

Now, I might've missed somethings in this OP. If anyone else knows of any other legislation, either Pro-Christian or anti-Christian, please share.

And just remember: spiritual belief is a private matter, not a public one. You have your relationship with God, but don't make me tell you to "Get a room!"

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey, didn't we just have the "big debate" over whether or not America was a Christian nation? I guess it is.

Anyway, it's all about how you define "Christian" legislation. If you think that the refusal to enact laws which go against Christian core beliefs, but at the same time do not impinge on anyone's human rights, is "Christian" legislation, there's a problem. Because ANTI-CHristian legislation is geared at targeting, marginalizing and penalizing Christians.

Get it? Yes we're the majority, which is why the minority of Christian haters will walk all over the Constititution in order to force their own beliefs upon the majority.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Hey, didn't we just have the "big debate" over whether or not America was a Christian nation? I guess it is.

Anyway, it's all about how you define "Christian" legislation. If you think that the refusal to enact laws which go against Christian core beliefs, but at the same time do not impinge on anyone's human rights, is "Christian" legislation, there's a problem. Because ANTI-CHristian legislation is geared at targeting, marginalizing and penalizing Christians.

Get it? Yes we're the majority, which is why the minority of Christian haters will walk all over the Constititution in order to force their own beliefs upon the majority.

Wow. Everytime I read one of your posts I realize that you're a complete fuckin' wacko. No, I don't get it. What the hell are you talking about?

"Refusing to enact laws which go against Christian core beliefs but at the same time do no impinge on anyone's human rights" isn't Christian legislation? That's exactly what it is. Christians don't want same-sex couples to marry so the propose bills and vote those into law to prohibit same-sex couples the legality to marry. How is that not forcing others to live by your beliefs?

What anti-Christian legislation are you talking about? There isn't any! When does anyone ignore the Constitution to force Christians to live by another's beliefs? Never. It never happens!

You know those religious fanatic-extremists like the Taliban, Al Qaida, etc.? You're like the Christian version of one of them.

 

[AllieBaba]

And everytime I read something a leftard writes, I'm amazed at their ignorance and lack of simple comprehensive ability.

"Christian" legislation would be legislation which legislates religion. Do you get it? Not something that legislates Christian VALUES (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal). This is NOT Christian legislation. Voting down the homo marriage crap that legislators keep trying to force down the throat of the MAJORITY of people who are against it is NOT Christian legislation, you fucking idiot.

However, legislating what Christians can say and do within the confines of their church..provided their actions are not illegal...or discriminating against Christians or denying them freedom of speech or the ability to become political BASED UPON THEIR RELIGION is ANTI-CHRISTIAN legislation.

It's a violation of freedom of religion, and is the very thing the whole "separation of church and state" concept was supposed to prevent.

So let's talk again about how ignorant I am and what a superior understanding you have of the situation.

 

[Immanuel]

I have skimmed your OP CMM and for a start of this discussion let me ask you how you define Pro-Christian legislation?

I would not define laws against abortion, euthanasia or homosexuality as Pro-Christian. I would agree that the Christian community overwhelmingly supports these bills, but they would not be "Pro-Christian" as I would define them. Pro-Christian legislation would be the promotion of Christian ideals or churches, requiring tax dollars be given to Christian churches or the likes.

Just because legislation is backed by Christians does not make it "Pro-Christian" legislation in my point of view.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

There's the rub.

The left wants Christians silenced, and wants the majority marginalized, so they can march forward with their progressive, secular and communist agenda.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"Christian" legislation would be legislation which legislates religion. Do you get it? Not something that legislates Christian VALUES (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal). This is NOT Christian legislation. Voting down the homo marriage crap that legislators keep trying to force down the throat of the MAJORITY of people who are against it is NOT Christian legislation, you fucking idiot.

Wrong. Forcing others to live by Christian values when they aren't Christian, is violating freedom of religion. Get it. Pretty simple.

However, legislating what Christians can say and do within the confines of their church..provided their actions are not illegal...or discriminating against Christians or denying them freedom of speech or the ability to become political BASED UPON THEIR RELIGION is ANTI-CHRISTIAN legislation.

Where are these mystery bills or laws? Which laws say you can't be religious and run for office? We're talking about the United States right?

It's a violation of freedom of religion, and is the very thing the whole "separation of church and state" concept was supposed to prevent.[/QUOTE]

Ri-i-i-i-ght.

So let's talk again about how ignorant I am and what a superior understanding you have of the situation.

Okay. You're really ignorant of this situation, or I should say you're delusional and therefore I, by default, have a better understanding of it.

 

[Immanuel]

"Christian" legislation would be legislation which legislates religion. Do you get it? Not something that legislates Christian VALUES (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal). This is NOT Christian legislation. Voting down the homo marriage crap that legislators keep trying to force down the throat of the MAJORITY of people who are against it is NOT Christian legislation, you fucking idiot.

Wrong. Forcing others to live by Christian values when they aren't Christian, is violating freedom of religion. Get it. Pretty simple.

I have to disagree with this statement, CMM.

The truth of the matter is that any legislation is the attempt to force others to live by the proponents moral outlook. So, if I promote a bill that makes speaking on the cell phone while driving a crime because it is dangerous to other citizens, I am promoting my morals over the idiot's morals who is driving down the freeway, talking on his cell phone weaving in and out of three different lanes doing 48 mph in a 70 mph zone.

Legislation is based upon morals. The fact that Christians support certain legislation does not make that legislation "Pro-Christian".

Immie

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I have skimmed your OP CMM and for a start of this discussion let me ask you how you define Pro-Christian legislation?

I would not define laws against abortion, euthanasia or homosexuality as Pro-Christian. I would agree that the Christian community overwhelmingly supports these bills, but they would not be "Pro-Christian" as I would define them. Pro-Christian legislation would be the promotion of Christian ideals or churches, requiring tax dollars be given to Christian churches or the likes.

Just because legislation is backed by Christians does not make it "Pro-Christian" legislation in my point of view.

Immie

Well, perhpas I should've entitled the thread "Christian-values based legislation versus Secular Legislation".

I would say you're right. Those laws aren't Pro-Christian. Now making Church's tax exempt could be considered Pro-Christian, but then taxing them gives the government control over churches, so that isn't good either.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying above. The point of my OP was that there are Christian beliefs which are legislated or could-be legislated, for no other reason than that the bill was proposed by Christians and the majority of voters are Christian. This is a violation of separation of church and state.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, perhpas I should've entitled the thread "Christian-values based legislation versus Secular Legislation".

I would say you're right. Those laws aren't Pro-Christian. Now making Church's tax exempt could be considered Pro-Christian, but then taxing them gives the government control over churches, so that isn't good either.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying above. The point of my OP was that there are Christian beliefs which are legislated or could-be legislated, for no other reason than that the bill was proposed by Christians and the majority of voters are Christian. This is a violation of separation of church and state.

Explain that last sentence please. It almost seems as if you would be thinking that since there are so many Christian in this country they should not be allowed to vote because of their faith and voting while being faithful is a violation of the separation of church and state.

I know you are not saying that, but it comes close.

I think post #8 kind of highlights my thinking on the legislation of morals. It was posted while you were typing your response to my first post.

Immie

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I have to disagree with this statement, CMM.

The truth of the matter is that any legislation is the attempt to force others to live by the proponents moral outlook. So, if I promote a bill that makes speaking on the cell phone while driving a crime because it is dangerous to other citizens, I am promoting my morals over the idiot's morals who is driving down the freeway, talking on his cell phone weaving in and out of three different lanes doing 48 mph in a 70 mph zone.

Legislation is based upon morals. The fact that Christians support certain legislation does not make that legislation "Pro-Christian".

Immie

I would say to a certain degree, you're right.

However, I think you're analogy is not totally accurate. Statistically one might be able determine if injuries and deaths have increased because of an increased rate of accidents due to cell phone usage while driving. There is real world, tangible evidence to either support or refute the claim that using a cell phone while driving increases the chance of an automobile accident.

There isn't, however, any evidence that determines that homosexuality causes an increase in the rate of injury or death (just kidding), but you know what I mean. Not allowing one to marry someone else of the same gender also effectively brands homosexuals as second class citizens. Now one can say, "They have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do, if they marry the opposite gender." but that doesn't encompass the right of every US Citizen to the pursuit of happiness (which getting married to the person one loves certainly only counts as the pursuit and not the actual happiness). Civil unions which grant the same rights aren't the same thing, either. That is simply separate but equal and we know where that got us before the Civil Rights movement.

This is an entirely religious matter. Its mob rule by Christians. Tyranny of the majority, who are Christians.

What if Christians weren't the majority and someone proposed a bill that prohibited Christians from evangelizing? To the majority, its immoral to evangelize. But its part of the nature of Christianity to spread the Word. Would that be okay? No. Not only does it violate freedom of religion, but is also tyranny of the majority.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, Christianity is an intensely private thing. I've heard it described not as a religion but as a personal relationship with God. So, if homosexuality doesn't hurt you, why do you care? All that matters is your relationship with God, not someone else's. This is a nation with a secular government. If Christians really respected that and appreciated it, then they wouldn't attempt to circumvent it by voting on matters which are, for them, entirely religious.

It seems to me that if two people love eachother, they should have the opportunity to get married. I think its easy for Christians to vote on a bill like this because of their perceived self righteousness, but my uncle and his life partner have been together for 11 years. They love eachother and would marry if they could (they aren't religious). They have powers of attorney so compensate for the rights they don't get, but it doesn't get them all the rights that married people get (here in Colorado). It saddens me. Homosexuals are people too, you know? They're no different than anyone else except they are attracted the their own gender. So what? What's the big deal.

I think it would be very Christ-like of Christians just got over it and accepted people, who don't hurt anyone else, for who they are.

 

[Immanuel]

I would say to a certain degree, you're right.

However, I think you're analogy is not totally accurate. Statistically one might be able determine if injuries and deaths have increased because of an increased rate of accidents due to cell phone usage while driving. There is real world, tangible evidence to either support or refute the claim that using a cell phone while driving increases the chance of an automobile accident.

The point was not whether or not a law banning driving under the influence of a cell phone is a good law. The point was that if such a law were enacted (based on my beliefs that DUICP is a highly dangerous task, then it would be enacted based upon my morality which might just differ from yours.

All legislation is based upon someone's view of morality. That is what the law is all about. Whose morality wins is the deciding factor.

There isn't, however, any evidence that determines that homosexuality causes an increase in the rate of injury or death (just kidding), but you know what I mean. Not allowing one to marry someone else of the same gender also effectively brands homosexuals as second class citizens. Now one can say, "They have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do, if they marry the opposite gender." but that doesn't encompass the right of every US Citizen to the pursuit of happiness (which getting married to the person one loves certainly only counts as the pursuit and not the actual happiness). Civil unions which grant the same rights aren't the same thing, either. That is simply separate but equal and we know where that got us before the Civil Rights movement.

Well, I support an idea like "civil unions". I do not believe the government should be involved in the rite of marriage. The rite of marriage is a religious rite and has been for much longer than the U.S. has been a nation. The government should get out of the marriage business for both gay and straight and issue legal contracts to any couple (and if the country deemed it the correct thing to do, any threesome, foursome etc.) as civil unions giving the contracted full legal rights.

This would put marriage back into the hands of the church and out of the hands of the government. A married couple would need to sign a civil union contract to have the legal rights offered to civil unions. As for a gay couple getting married, that would again be the purview of the church. Some churches have welcomed homosexual couples into their folds. This is their right. Some churches have performed homosexual marriages. That is their right. A religious couple who wishes to have their union sanctified by God, could find one of these churches and get married in one of them. Whether or not such a marriage is sanctified by God is not up to me to determine. Also, my church would not be required to recognize such a marriage and whether or not my church would welcome John and Joseph Smith into our congregation as a married couple is an entirely independent matter to be determined by my church and no one else.

This is an entirely religious matter. Its mob rule by Christians. Tyranny of the majority, who are Christians.

I disagree.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Sir Winston Churchhill.

We have chosen a Democratic Republic as our form of government. We have chosen that until such a time as we find a better idea. Our laws are made by our government and if we don't agree with those laws or how they are instituted then we have the power to change them. So if you don't like them, change them.

What if Christians weren't the majority and someone proposed a bill that prohibited Christians from evangelizing? To the majority, its immoral to evangelize. But its part of the nature of Christianity to spread the Word. Would that be okay? No. Not only does it violate freedom of religion, but is also tyranny of the majority.

Would it be okay? Is hatred ever okay? Is discrimination ever okay? Was it okay for Japanese Americans to be interred during WWII simply because Japan was our enemy? Laws based upon hatred are never okay, but laws outlawing abortion are not based upon hatred, they are based upon love. Laws outlawing Euthanasia are not based upon hatred, but rather love. Laws requiring that a marriage be between one man and one woman are not based upon hatred, but, yes, love. Some don't see it that way, but that is the reason for it.

You and I may not agree with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but just because we don't see eye to eye with the people who do support such an amendment does not mean that those people all have horrific reasons for supporting it.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, Christianity is an intensely private thing. I've heard it described not as a religion but as a personal relationship with God. So, if homosexuality doesn't hurt you, why do you care? All that matters is your relationship with God, not someone else's. This is a nation with a secular government. If Christians really respected that and appreciated it, then they wouldn't attempt to circumvent it by voting on matters which are, for them, entirely religious.

Well, this should probably be in an entirely different thread and I don't know that I feel qualified to do this justice.

Let me start by saying this. If you loved me as a brother and wanted only the best for me and you knew that God existed and that he was full of love and grace and that all those who despised broccoli (chose this far out scenario for an example nothing more) were destined to spend eternity separated from God, and that I gag at the thought of swallowing broccoli, would you not do everything you could do to make me like broccoli? Would you not try to find a recipe for broccoli, (give it up none exist) that I like? Would you not do that for me as your brother?

It seems to me that if two people love each other, they should have the opportunity to get married. I think its easy for Christians to vote on a bill like this because of their perceived self righteousness, but my uncle and his life partner have been together for 11 years. They love each other and would marry if they could (they aren't religious). They have powers of attorney so compensate for the rights they don't get, but it doesn't get them all the rights that married people get (here in Colorado). It saddens me. Homosexuals are people too, you know? They're no different than anyone else except they are attracted the their own gender. So what? What's the big deal.

Yes, I know homosexuals are people too. My best friend in high school confided in me that he was gay just before he died in an automobile accident.

First, I didn't say it was a big deal.

Second, going back to my broccoli example, if you love your Uncle and you knew God and you knew that God condemned homosexuals to hell, (I am not saying he does. I believe they are sinners just as I am a sinner. If God condemns them for their sins without any hope of Grace, then I have no hope either) then would you not do everything in your power to bring your uncle out of his sin?

What's the big deal? Well, if you believed that your uncle was destined for hell and you were destined for heaven, would that be a big deal to you? True Christians know God and love people. They want what God wants and God does not want anyone to be separated from him. I can't think of the verse, but there is at least one that says that God does not want anyone condemned, but that he wants all of us to be saved.

Ah ha! Here is the verse:

1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

1st Timothy 2:1-7

True Christians want the same thing. So, if true Christians want this, does it not follow suit that they would want to share this with those who are condemned? Okay, let's forget the fact that it is extremely arrogant for Christians to claim to know who is and who is not condemned, but I think you get the point. If I am of the idea that you are condemned to hell and that the only way to change that is for you to believe in Jesus Christ, then by God, I am going to make you believe in Jesus Christ come hell or high water whether you hate me for it or not!!!!!

I think it would be very Christ-like of Christians just got over it and accepted people, who don't hurt anyone else, for who they are.

If only I were like Christ!

Immie

 

[ItsFairmont]

There's the rub.

The left wants Christians silenced, and wants the majority marginalized, so they can march forward with their progressive, secular and communist agenda.

I'm on the left and I am a Christian.

Sure, I am pro-life, which some might think makes me a right winger, but that's about the only thing I have in common with the fake conservatives (which is most of them).


I am against war, but am for welfare (if it helps them up, not gives away freebies).

I am against abortion, but am a huge supporter of birth control. We fulfilled "multiply and subdue the earth." We have succeeded in being fruitful, so we can check that off the list.

I am not a global warming fanatic, but DO believe in solar, nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric.

I am, as mentioned before, against war and imperialism, which is two things the USA has been engaged in since Teddy Roosevelt. It hasn't stopped yet. We are an imperialist nation, and there is no arguing this fact. I think we should return all our troops to within our borders. It's the Christian thing to do.

I love all people, be they gay, Muslim, psychopathic, etc. I just disagree with many of them. I don't support or fight against gay marriage. I don't plan to marry a man.


I support capitalism because it's the most natural economic system ever known, and it has been with us since the beginning of time and will always be with us. Capitalism exists in every single nation on this earth, even if some of the leaders of the world want to pretend their communists. Heck, even the Amish make and sell trinkets. Communism doesn't exist, and the liberals of America aren't trying to promote it. That's a red herring and a lie when people call liberals communists.

If liberals are communists then conservatives are fascists.

Silly stuff.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The point was not whether or not a law banning driving under the influence of a cell phone is a good law. The point was that if such a law were enacted (based on my beliefs that DUICP is a highly dangerous task, then it would be enacted based upon my morality which might just differ from yours. All legislation is based upon someone's view of morality. That is what the law is all about. Whose morality wins is the deciding factor.

But, what you are forgetting is that the Constitution was written in such a way that laws couldn't be passed, even if approved by the majority of vote, that would limit the rights and freedoms of a group of people, except criminals. Homosexuality isn't against the law, so no one has the right to limit their rights and freedoms.

Well, I support an idea like "civil unions". I do not believe the government should be involved in the rite of marriage. The rite of marriage is a religious rite and has been for much longer than the U.S. has been a nation. The government should get out of the marriage business for both gay and straight and issue legal contracts to any couple (and if the country deemed it the correct thing to do, any threesome, foursome etc.) as civil unions giving the contracted full legal rights.

Well, that's pragmatic and I think that it would be a good compromise. But extremists on both sides don't like that idea. Rightwing extremists want homosexuals killed or jailed, disenfranchised, excluded from society, or banished. Leftwing extremists think that if heterosexuals can get married, then why shouldn't they.

This would put marriage back into the hands of the church and out of the hands of the government. A married couple would need to sign a civil union contract to have the legal rights offered to civil unions. As for a gay couple getting married, that would again be the purview of the church. Some churches have welcomed homosexual couples into their folds. This is their right. Some churches have performed homosexual marriages. That is their right. A religious couple who wishes to have their union sanctified by God, could find one of these churches and get married in one of them. Whether or not such a marriage is sanctified by God is not up to me to determine. Also, my church would not be required to recognize such a marriage and whether or not my church would welcome John and Joseph Smith into our congregation as a married couple is an entirely independent matter to be determined by my church and no one else.

I think that there has been a lot of propaganda from the right that uses scare tactics to convince Christians that once homosexuals get married the government will force churches to marry same-sex couples and accept homosexual members. That is certainly not true. Homosexuals just want their unions to be recognized by the government in the same manner as hetersosexuals unions are. Churches have nothing to do with it.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Sir Winston Churchhill.

We have chosen a Democratic Republic as our form of government. We have chosen that until such a time as we find a better idea. Our laws are made by our government and if we don't agree with those laws or how they are instituted then we have the power to change them. So if you don't like them, change them.

Like I said before, the Constitution was set up to stop mob rule and tyranny of the majority. I understand that the majority of Americans don't want homosexuals to marry, but then again, the majority isn't always right. That's why we have the Constitution.

Would it be okay? Is hatred ever okay? Is discrimination ever okay? Was it okay for Japanese Americans to be interred during WWII simply because Japan was our enemy? Laws based upon hatred are never okay, but laws outlawing abortion are not based upon hatred, they are based upon love. Laws outlawing Euthanasia are not based upon hatred, but rather love. Laws requiring that a marriage be between one man and one woman are not based upon hatred, but, yes, love. Some don't see it that way, but that is the reason for it.

I see what you're trying to say, but I'm not buying it. If discrimination is never okay, then Christians need to stop discriminating against homosexuals, people who believe abortion is okay, and people who choose to die when they are suffering and terminally ill. It doesn't matter if they believe, say, or really do it out of love - its still discrimination.

You and I may not agree with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but just because we don't see eye to eye with the people who do support such an amendment does not mean that those people all have horrific reasons for supporting it.

And I don't think that all of them do have horrific reasons. I think many of them dislike or find homosexuality distasteful. I think many of them think homosexuals will somehow change their children into homosexuals (which is ridiculous by the way). I believe churches and rightwing propaganda demonizes homosexuality and homosexuals and that many Christians, who haven't been exposed, are buying into that.

Well, this should probably be in an entirely different thread and I don't know that I feel qualified to do this justice.

Let me start by saying this. If you loved me as a brother and wanted only the best for me and you knew that God existed and that he was full of love and grace and that all those who despised broccoli (chose this far out scenario for an example nothing more) were destined to spend eternity separated from God, and that I gag at the thought of swallowing broccoli, would you not do everything you could do to make me like broccoli? Would you not try to find a recipe for broccoli, (give it up none exist) that I like? Would you not do that for me as your brother?

Well, I wouldn't pass a law saying that you had to eat broccoli (because what if you're just 'naturally' allergic to it?) anyway because that requires a belief that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. That's a symptom of monotheistic religions: that their religion is the right one despite all the other religions and beliefs in the world. Fine. Believe you're right, but leave room for doubt, because you don't KNOW you're right.

Yes, I know homosexuals are people too. My best friend in high school confided in me that he was gay just before he died in an automobile accident.

First, I didn't say it was a big deal.

I know, I meant that toward all the people who, for some reason, hate or discriminate against homosexuals when there really is no reason for it at all.

Second, going back to my broccoli example, if you love your Uncle and you knew God and you knew that God condemned homosexuals to hell, (I am not saying he does. I believe they are sinners just as I am a sinner. If God condemns them for their sins without any hope of Grace, then I have no hope either) then would you not do everything in your power to bring your uncle out of his sin?

I wouldn't assume that I know best.

What's the big deal? Well, if you believed that your uncle was destined for hell and you were destined for heaven, would that be a big deal to you? True Christians know God and love people. They want what God wants and God does not want anyone to be separated from him. I can't think of the verse, but there is at least one that says that God does not want anyone condemned, but that he wants all of us to be saved.

True Christians want the same thing. So, if true Christians want this, does it not follow suit that they would want to share this with those who are condemned? Okay, let's forget the fact that it is extremely arrogant for Christians to claim to know who is and who is not condemned, but I think you get the point. If I am of the idea that you are condemned to hell and that the only way to change that is for you to believe in Jesus Christ, then by God, I am going to make you believe in Jesus Christ come hell or high water whether you hate me for it or not!!!!!

Right, but once again, who are you to say what's best for others?

If only I were like Christ! Immie

You and everybody else. Including me.

I think Christians, Muslims, and Jews should all leave room for doubt. By each assuming that their religion is the right one, their beliefs are righteous, we have wars of religion. We have hatred of religion and between religions. At best its arrogant and at worst its an excuse to do whatever their religious leaders, or holy texts have been interpreted to, say. It's why extremists in all monotheistic religions do things like start crusades, suicide bomb, murder infidels, invade other countries, commit atrocities, etc.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There's the rub.

The left wants Christians silenced, and wants the majority marginalized, so they can march forward with their progressive, secular and communist agenda.

I'm on the left and I am a Christian.

Sure, I am pro-life, which some might think makes me a right winger, but that's about the only thing I have in common with the fake conservatives (which is most of them).


I am against war, but am for welfare (if it helps them up, not gives away freebies).

I am against abortion, but am a huge supporter of birth control. We fulfilled "multiply and subdue the earth." We have succeeded in being fruitful, so we can check that off the list.

I am not a global warming fanatic, but DO believe in solar, nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric.

I am, as mentioned before, against war and imperialism, which is two things the USA has been engaged in since Teddy Roosevelt. It hasn't stopped yet. We are an imperialist nation, and there is no arguing this fact. I think we should return all our troops to within our borders. It's the Christian thing to do.

I love all people, be they gay, Muslim, psychopathic, etc. I just disagree with many of them. I don't support or fight against gay marriage. I don't plan to marry a man.


I support capitalism because it's the most natural economic system ever known, and it has been with us since the beginning of time and will always be with us. Capitalism exists in every single nation on this earth, even if some of the leaders of the world want to pretend their communists. Heck, even the Amish make and sell trinkets. Communism doesn't exist, and the liberals of America aren't trying to promote it. That's a red herring and a lie when people call liberals communists.

If liberals are communists then conservatives are fascists.

Silly stuff.

If only everyone was more like you, the world could be a much better place.

 

[Newby]

How many different times and ways can you argue the gay marriage subject? Why not just post a link to all of the other threads you have on the exact same subject, just under a different label? People should quit giving any attention to your Christian bashing threads, all they are is a ruse to argue gay marriage. Just make a 'Gay Marriage' thread and put it all in there already.

 

[tigerbob]

Rep on the way to both Immie and CMM for what I think is a quite fascinating and informative exchange of views.

 

[Immanuel]

The point was not whether or not a law banning driving under the influence of a cell phone is a good law. The point was that if such a law were enacted (based on my beliefs that DUICP is a highly dangerous task, then it would be enacted based upon my morality which might just differ from yours. All legislation is based upon someone's view of morality. That is what the law is all about. Whose morality wins is the deciding factor.

But, what you are forgetting is that the Constitution was written in such a way that laws couldn't be passed, even if approved by the majority of vote, that would limit the rights and freedoms of a group of people, except criminals. Homosexuality isn't against the law, so no one has the right to limit their rights and freedoms.

No, I am not forgetting that. First, I did not state that I agree with any law that limits rights and freedoms of homosexuals. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that the government should legislate against it.

Second, that is what we have the Supreme Court for. It is there job to review and remove laws that are unconstitutional.

Well, I support an idea like "civil unions". I do not believe the government should be involved in the rite of marriage. The rite of marriage is a religious rite and has been for much longer than the U.S. has been a nation. The government should get out of the marriage business for both gay and straight and issue legal contracts to any couple (and if the country deemed it the correct thing to do, any threesome, foursome etc.) as civil unions giving the contracted full legal rights.

Well, that's pragmatic and I think that it would be a good compromise. But extremists on both sides don't like that idea. Rightwing extremists want homosexuals killed or jailed, disenfranchised, excluded from society, or banished. Leftwing extremists think that if heterosexuals can get married, then why shouldn't they.

/sarcasm on Well, don't you understand that Right Wing extremists only do this out of love forthe homosexual? /sarcasm off

I think that there has been a lot of propaganda from the right that uses scare tactics to convince Christians that once homosexuals get married the government will force churches to marry same-sex couples and accept homosexual members. That is certainly not true. Homosexuals just want their unions to be recognized by the government in the same manner as hetersosexuals unions are. Churches have nothing to do with it.

I agree churches have nothing to do with it nor would the government interfere in a churches decision not to accept homosexual members. At least not at this period of time.

Like I said before, the Constitution was set up to stop mob rule and tyranny of the majority. I understand that the majority of Americans don't want homosexuals to marry, but then again, the majority isn't always right. That's why we have the Constitution.

The majority is not always right case in point would be the abortion issue.

That is why we have the Supreme Court to intervene.

I see what you're trying to say, but I'm not buying it. If discrimination is never okay, then Christians need to stop discriminating against homosexuals, people who believe abortion is okay, and people who choose to die when they are suffering and terminally ill. It doesn't matter if they believe, say, or really do it out of love - its still discrimination.

I would agree, Christians need to stop discriminating against the people. Christ would not have... we should not. That is what I have been saying.

And I don't think that all of them do have horrific reasons. I think many of them dislike or find homosexuality distasteful. I think many of them think homosexuals will somehow change their children into homosexuals (which is ridiculous by the way). I believe churches and rightwing propaganda demonizes homosexuality and homosexuals and that many Christians, who haven't been exposed, are buying into that.

No disagreement there.

Well, I wouldn't pass a law saying that you had to eat broccoli (because what if you're just 'naturally' allergic to it?) anyway because that requires a belief that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. That's a symptom of monotheistic religions: that their religion is the right one despite all the other religions and beliefs in the world. Fine. Believe you're right, but leave room for doubt, because you don't KNOW you're right.

You miss the point. I said that if you believed in God and you believed I was condemned to hell would you not do your best to "save my soul"? I pray you would.

I wouldn't assume that I know best.

Well, I never said Christians were perfect. We believe God and we want everyone to be saved. I understand that is an arrogant point of view to some, but, when you believe that others are destined for eternal separation from God and that eternal separation is a terrible state of existence, then you want to do everything you can to minimize the suffering of others.

What's the big deal? Well, if you believed that your uncle was destined for hell and you were destined for heaven, would that be a big deal to you? True Christians know God and love people. They want what God wants and God does not want anyone to be separated from him. I can't think of the verse, but there is at least one that says that God does not want anyone condemned, but that he wants all of us to be saved.

True Christians want the same thing. So, if true Christians want this, does it not follow suit that they would want to share this with those who are condemned? Okay, let's forget the fact that it is extremely arrogant for Christians to claim to know who is and who is not condemned, but I think you get the point. If I am of the idea that you are condemned to hell and that the only way to change that is for you to believe in Jesus Christ, then by God, I am going to make you believe in Jesus Christ come hell or high water whether you hate me for it or not!!!!!

Right, but once again, who are you to say what's best for others?

Me? I'm nobody at all. But, I still do not want you to feel the flames of Hell.

If only I were like Christ! Immie

You and everybody else. Including me.

I think Christians, Muslims, and Jews should all leave room for doubt. By each assuming that their religion is the right one, their beliefs are righteous, we have wars of religion. We have hatred of religion and between religions. At best its arrogant and at worst its an excuse to do whatever their religious leaders, or holy texts have been interpreted to, say. It's why extremists in all monotheistic religions do things like start crusades, suicide bomb, murder infidels, invade other countries, commit atrocities, etc.

To leave room for doubt is the denial of one's faith. How can one say, "I believe God completely... but maybe"?

Immie

 

[Toro]

I have skimmed your OP CMM and for a start of this discussion let me ask you how you define Pro-Christian legislation?

I would not define laws against abortion, euthanasia or homosexuality as Pro-Christian. I would agree that the Christian community overwhelmingly supports these bills, but they would not be "Pro-Christian" as I would define them. Pro-Christian legislation would be the promotion of Christian ideals or churches, requiring tax dollars be given to Christian churches or the likes.

Just because legislation is backed by Christians does not make it "Pro-Christian" legislation in my point of view.

Immie

Though I do not disagree that simply because Christians support something does not mean it is pro-Christian - i.e. SEC football - I would argue that opposition to abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality are Christian ideals.

 

[tigerbob]

CMM - you PMd me and asked for my views. It's an awful lot to respond to and I'm short on time today. However, let me summarize as follows.

I'm British. I have never made a big study of the constitution and base my views purely on what I consider is right and wrong. In deciding what I believe is right, I lean on my faith and the central tenet of 'Do unto others'.

I believe that no religion should have undue influence on politics. That does not mean that no religion should have a voice, but does mean that the views of those who have faith should not be imposed upon those who do not. As such, for example, I am pro choice. That said, I believe that life begins at the first heartbeat. Abortion after that point troubles me deeply, but I understand that my view will likely be very different to others.

I have no problem with gay marriage, so long as that does not mean that churches are forced to carry out same sex marriage ceremonies. I think gays should have exactly the same rights under law as everyone else. It's not my place to judge them.

I believe that religious pressure groups who represent the rights of the unborn have every right to do so. I believe that any activists who do something illegal to advance their agenda should go to prison.

I feel that there is a place for the teachings of Christ in a civilized society. Indeed, I believe that the teachings of Christ have had a hugely positive influence on the development of 'western' society. That said, I also believe that many Christians do things that Christ would have considered appalling, both in the past (i.e. the Inquisition, the Crusades) and in the present (threatening or even harming doctors). I believe that on judgement day I will get more credit for 'loving my neighbor' than I will for having lived my life dogmatically.

I think there is a lot of good in the Bible, but that (a) it was written as a political document which was of its time (b) there is a huge amount in it that is contradictory or open to interpretation. Some people choose to ignore the new testament and beat their enemies about the head with the old testament. To me, this reveals nothing about Christianity, and everything about the character of the individual.

I believe that America is not a Christian country, but it is overwhelmingly a country of Christians.

Sorry I could deal with the specific issues but, you know what? So long as people are able to discuss these things reasonably I thnk we are headed in the right direction.

Churchill once said "So long as you are kind, and generous, and true, you cannot harm the world, or even seriously distress her". That, in a nutshell, is my position.