A Question Regarding Religion in America

[Al Gunn]

If Obama would have said he doesn't believe in god, he NEVER would have been able to get himself elected, it's really very simple.
As for gay marriage, if you're not gay and you vote against gay marriage, you're discriminating against people you don't agree with just because of their lifestyle, which makes you a bigot.

Sunni, keep up the laughs, you crack me up with your homophobia. LOL

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni, keep up the laughs, you crack me up with your homophobia. LOL

Glad I can keep you entertained

 

[Al Gunn]

Sunni, you one of those guys who wipes his ass with his bare hand?

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni, you one of those guys who wipes his ass with his bare hand?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sunni, you one of those guys who wipes his ass with his bare hand?

Ignore him Sunni - Remember when beer was a new experience? Sometimes we just have to give the kids a break.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is a difference... gay adults are not doing anything illegal.

If you can't understand the moral obligation of the government to protect the rights of a minority who are living in legal peace then America still needs some work.

-Joe

Well not now.

Sodomy was illegal for centuries in many states previous to the Lawrence decision.

I still don't see why we should accept that its a civil rights issue simply because its asserted to be so. No one is being denied the right to vote. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. So why should we accept it as such?

In the 13 & 14th centuries, the king of France owned out-right his fellow Frenchmen. They were his to do with as he pleased. Even to the point of murder. It was the law.

Some laws should be changed.

(Insert your favorite Deity here) bless change.

-Joe

 

[Al Gunn]

Sunni, you one of those guys who wipes his ass with his bare hand?

You a real muzzy?

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni, you one of those guys who wipes his ass with his bare hand?

You a real muzzy?

 

[Avatar4321]

If Obama would have said he doesn't believe in god, he NEVER would have been able to get himself elected, it's really very simple.
As for gay marriage, if you're not gay and you vote against gay marriage, you're discriminating against people you don't agree with just because of their lifestyle, which makes you a bigot.

Sunni, keep up the laughs, you crack me up with your homophobia. LOL

Simply reasserting your previous position doesnt make it suddenly so. The fact is Obama has some pretty radical religious views. He was still elected. If he was an atheist I dont think he would have had any more problems.

However, whether or not he would have been electable does not change the fact that we have freedom of religion in this nation. Not believing in God or having radical views on God wont keep you off any ballot. If you cant convince people to vote for you, that isnt because we lack religious freedom.

And your assertion aside, opposing gay marriage does not make one a bigot any more than opposing murder makes you a bigot against murderers. All law is based on being agianst someone for their choices in behavior. Bigotry requires hatred. And although you guys would like to pretend all opposition to gay marriage stems from hatred of gays, that is patently untrue.

It also ignores the fact that gays are allowed to marry the same exact people everyone else can under the law. Failure to take advantage of this isnt discrimination.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a difference... gay adults are not doing anything illegal.

If you can't understand the moral obligation of the government to protect the rights of a minority who are living in legal peace then America still needs some work.

-Joe

Well not now.

Sodomy was illegal for centuries in many states previous to the Lawrence decision.

I still don't see why we should accept that its a civil rights issue simply because its asserted to be so. No one is being denied the right to vote. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. So why should we accept it as such?

In the 13 & 14th centuries, the king of France owned out-right his fellow Frenchmen. They were his to do with as he pleased. Even to the point of murder. It was the law.

Some laws should be changed.

(Insert your favorite Deity here) bless change.

-Joe

But thats exactly the point. Laws do change. Basing decisions on whats legal and whats not is merely a matter of time in some instances. Thats the problem with law. And thats why law should be based on principles rather than principles being based on law.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well not now.

Sodomy was illegal for centuries in many states previous to the Lawrence decision.

I still don't see why we should accept that its a civil rights issue simply because its asserted to be so. No one is being denied the right to vote. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. So why should we accept it as such?

In the 13 & 14th centuries, the king of France owned out-right his fellow Frenchmen. They were his to do with as he pleased. Even to the point of murder. It was the law.

Some laws should be changed.

(Insert your favorite Deity here) bless change.

-Joe

But thats exactly the point. Laws do change. Basing decisions on whats legal and whats not is merely a matter of time in some instances. Thats the problem with law. And thats why law should be based on principles rather than principles being based on law.

Unfortunately brother, that good point of yours brings us back to square one, because basing our principles on something other than our popular, community based laws, complete with their human flaws and the protests that those flaws demand requires that there be a higher authority than our collective self and many of us don't believe that one exists. In addition, there is much disagreement among the proponents of a higher authority regarding the interpretations of the instructions He supposedly left us.

I know that you do believe a higher authority exists and I respect that, but if more of our neighbors believe that We, The People should dynamically decide the parameters of our principles as we go along than believe that our principles should be based on your favorite piece of ancient literature, the principles of law will continue to evolve and flow with the times.

Doesn't mean you can't live your life by principles in addition to our laws, it just means you can't fault the rest of us for not doing likewise. It also doesn't mean that the really good principles, like 'thou shall not kill' won't stand the test of time and maintain their place of honor in the paper of our law books as well as being carved into the stone of the ancient literature that some consider holy.

Our only other choice as a nation is to go all Sunni -vs- Shiite on each other, and that would be a ******* mess.

-Joe

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody, including Sunni Man, on this thread has said anything about taking away anybodies right to think what they like about religion. The thesis question of the thread is 'Would you defend another Americans right to believe something, even if you personally thought they were wrong?'

Please. Sunni is all about suppressing those who don't agree with him. Why do you think I keep his ignorant ass on ignore?



And now you want a cookie for your great magnanimity?

CS Lewis said in "The Screwtape Letters" that it was a goal of Hell to get people to be paranoid of that sin which they were least in danger of committing. Thus, licentious societies fear the horrors of Puritanical oppression, for example. And thus does this board have you concerned with whether or not Christians respect the right of others enough to defend them while on several occasions, I have heard people - all innocently and earnestly - expressing the belief that Christians and their beliefs should be barred from the public arena to serve some apocryphal idea of "separation of church and state".

Am I now supposed to be impressed that you have so generously agreed that people you disagree with should be allowed to believe as they please? Should I thank you?



This is me NOT falling off my chair from shock.



Right back atcha, buddy boy, and with a hell of a lot more urgency, since your side is the one encroaching on freedom of belief and practice, not mine.



Call me when you actually start this glorious defense, all right? I won't hold my breath.



I doubt it. You seem to want medals simply for the enormous act of allowing me to exist, and that would get old fast.

By the way, I don't think you're going to Hell. I am carefully instructed by the holy book you disdain to not presume to have an opinion about the state of someone else's soul. I leave that sort of excessive judgementalism to YOUR side.

As far as I am concerned we can, but I am only half the equation.

-Joe

Exactly half, and not the half you flatter yourself to think it is.

I'll put you down for a 'no' regarding your willingness to defend your fellow Americans right to think differently.

P.S. - I do NOT 'distain' The Bible - on the contrary, I hold it in the same esteem as most earth literature of its era. I have found many of the stories fascinating... I understand your passion for its redemption story and its theory of origins but I don't share your faith in the conclusions that religious doctrine for the last 2,500 years has placed in those stories.

-Joe

Just like I said: The only intolerance around here is YOUR insistence on seeing disagreement with your opinions as suppression of them. Did I say I wouldn't defend your right to be a brain-damaged ass as much as you want? On the contrary, I said the exact opposite, but you're just incapable of seeing tolerance in anything short of me just shutting up entirely about whatever you don't want to hear.

You don't understand anything about my relationship with the Bible, by the way, so don't flatter yourself that you do simply because you've gratuitously projected whatever you assume Christians think onto me. If and when I actually TELL you my thoughts and feelings on the subject, THEN you will "under my passion" for whatever it is, but until then, I will thank you to keep your words in your own mouth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ya right, Obama could have said that there's no invisible super daddy and he'd have gotten elected? Maybe you should go have a strong coffeee, it appears that you're not fully awake yet.

As for gay marriage, religious people in california voted out gay marriage (equal rights), were you asleep during that as well?

The majority refused to change the definition of marriage.

Big diff.

And oh, btw, you're a complete idiot.

That was a little uncalled for Allie... Doesn't he have a right to be wrong without being called names?

-Joe

No, although I would certainly expect someone who thinks disagreement equals suppression to think so.

He has a right to be wrong. He doesn't have a right to have other people be silent about his wrongness, because everyone ELSE has the same right to express their opinions. That includes Allie's opinion that he's a complete idiot, which I second.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not true, In the US if you don't believe in god, you can't get elected, that's no freedom. And you can get your rights taken away, like no gay marriage, if you're against the teachings of the bible.

Oh, damn. To get elected, you have to espouse ideas that the majority of the voters like and identify with. It's TYRANNY, I tell you! I should be able to get elected no matter WHAT I say or stand for!

And there's never BEEN a "right" to gay "marriage", so how the hell can it have been taken away, Mensa Boy? If I put my ear up against yours, would I be able to hear the ocean?

Ya got nothin' but acid, eh?

*sigh*

You want to sigh about something, how about your "I didn't like what you said, so I totally ignored it and just assumed that it was 'acid'" schtick? You people just LOVE running around here, pretending to be the sweet voice of reason that's just looking for answers, but as soon as someone either says something you don't want to hear or calls you on your essential intolerance and closedmindedness, you become teenagers being told by Mom to clean your rooms.

Let me say it again. It's not "tyranny" that appealing for votes means saying things that the voters identify with, and it's childish to think that getting elected should be divorced from what someone says and who they are. And it is a stone fact that there has never been a "right" to homosexual "marriage", which means it's literally impossible to "take it away".

These are what those of us with more brains and debating power than spoiled adolescents call "facts". They aren't "nothing", nor are they "just acid", unless you count their ability to eat away at your simplistic little leftist fantasy world, should you ever become brave enough to hear them instead of lamely trying to dismiss them out-of-hand.

As for the insults, I'll tell you what I tell every sniveling leftist whining like a kindergartner on the playground: if you want respect, you earn it. You don't demand it. Idiocy earns contempt, not courtesy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You absolutely have the right to your belief and good Christians will die to defend that right...as we did during the revolutionary, civil and every war since.

Good Christians believe in religious freedom, nobody has a deeper desire to see it.

I challenge anyone to find evidence of true Christians attempting to silence those of other faiths. I, however, can provide ample evidence of progressive leftards attempting to shut down and bring about mainstream discrimination against Christians, however. By attempting to penalize Christians economically, politically and socially for daring to admit they are Christian.

I challenge you to provide evidence of true liberals attempting to silence Christians.

Your attempts at word-parsing aren't going to work any more than your attempts at sticking your fingers in your ears in order to pretend you can't hear what I'm saying do.

The left is oppressing religious freedom in this country as much as they possibly can, and you get to own that. Trying to duck it by playing word games to separate yourself from your leadership and revered spokesgroups will fool no one, and only make you look sillier and more dishonest than you already do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gay marriage is a right, bestowed on homosexuals by their CREATOR, and who are you to say that it wasn't?

Some folks do not understand that marriage equality is a civil rights issue.

According to who? Who determines that it is a civil rights issue and why should we accept their view of the matter?

I want to know who determined that it was a basic human right bestowed by the Creator. Let's see some proof of THAT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't have to prove its a civil rights issue. It is one. Check out how many rights married people have.

There are benefits either through the government or through business (your insurance, say) are connected to married relationships. So if you're in a relationship, either a single-sex relationship or a heterosexual relationship, and you're not married, there are a number of things that you are excluded from or that you don't have access to because of the way the system has been structured which very much privileges marriage.

General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049 federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I only have to assert that it's true. I don't have to prove it. My word should be enough, and how dare you not just keep silent while I dictate the terms of the debate?"

Thanks for admitting that you know your argument hasn't a leg to stand on as well as we do.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The majority refused to change the definition of marriage.

Big diff.

And oh, btw, you're a complete idiot.

That was a little uncalled for Allie... Doesn't he have a right to be wrong without being called names?

-Joe

No, although I would certainly expect someone who thinks disagreement equals suppression to think so.

He has a right to be wrong. He doesn't have a right to have other people be silent about his wrongness, because everyone ELSE has the same right to express their opinions. That includes Allie's opinion that he's a complete idiot, which I second.

Calling 'bullshit' on his ideas and thinking is NOT the same as calling him an idiot. Calling him an idiot, is a personal attack.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Oh, damn. To get elected, you have to espouse ideas that the majority of the voters like and identify with. It's TYRANNY, I tell you! I should be able to get elected no matter WHAT I say or stand for!

And there's never BEEN a "right" to gay "marriage", so how the hell can it have been taken away, Mensa Boy? If I put my ear up against yours, would I be able to hear the ocean?

Ya got nothin' but acid, eh?

*sigh*

You want to sigh about something, how about your "I didn't like what you said, so I totally ignored it and just assumed that it was 'acid'" schtick? You people just LOVE running around here, pretending to be the sweet voice of reason that's just looking for answers, but as soon as someone either says something you don't want to hear or calls you on your essential intolerance and closedmindedness, you become teenagers being told by Mom to clean your rooms.

Let me say it again. It's not "tyranny" that appealing for votes means saying things that the voters identify with, and it's childish to think that getting elected should be divorced from what someone says and who they are. And it is a stone fact that there has never been a "right" to homosexual "marriage", which means it's literally impossible to "take it away".

These are what those of us with more brains and debating power than spoiled adolescents call "facts". They aren't "nothing", nor are they "just acid", unless you count their ability to eat away at your simplistic little leftist fantasy world, should you ever become brave enough to hear them instead of lamely trying to dismiss them out-of-hand.

As for the insults, I'll tell you what I tell every sniveling leftist whining like a kindergartner on the playground: if you want respect, you earn it. You don't demand it. Idiocy earns contempt, not courtesy.

I will admit, you're kind of cute when you're trying to play the 'nasty' card. Maybe it's your avatar...

-Joe

 

[Al Gunn]

Cec, you have so much hate inside you, please do yourself a favor and get some therapy.
So you're ok that a majority can tell a minority what they can and can't do? Some freedom you guys have in the US, free to do whatever the majority says. What if the majority decides the blacks shouldn't marry? I guess because it was voted by a majority, it's ok. Or maybe next, you'll not want gays sitting next to you on the bus, and they'll have to go and sit in the back?