America is not growing hostile towards Chriastians; it is hostile towards religious bullies.

[Ringel05]

I have all the sympathy in the world for Christians who get slaughtered in the Middle East because of their faith.

I have no sympathy at all for Christian Conservatives who cry persecution in America because they don't get their way.

Neither do I, good thing we're talking about a small but vocal minority in this country.

Yeah...my concern is that that vocal minority is making some disturbing headway. They have found a way to legislate legal abortion centers out of several states; they are getting "slut shaming" ultrasound laws passed, they are getting "fag shaming" bathroom bills passed. I agree that they are a vocal minority. Unfortunately, because of a near decade of Republican redistricting, and gerrymandering, we have created an environment, where that vocal minority is the only voice that politicians feel the need to listen to, and, as a result, they are getting things done that, in a sane, and rational environment, they would otherwise never come close to.

This rather concerns me, and needs to change. Which means that Progressives need to stop thinking "nationally", as if electing a President is the universal panacea, and no other races really matter. We need to start worrying about state races, including gubernatorial races, and state legislations, and realise that they matter, too.

The battle at local and state levels has been going on unabated between the ultra progressives and ultra conservatives for quite a while now, at least a century or more. The progressives win in one area and the far right win in another generally due to gerrymandering and redistricting on both sides. As for today the pendulum is swinging to the right, eventually it will turn back, how long that process takes is anyone's guess. Remember, in any form of democracy change typically comes slowly as most change is always met with some form of resistance, look at where we are now as opposed to even a hundred years ago. Change will come but you need to be patient, this is the norm in a society such as ours.

 

[BreezeWood]

it will be interesting how the Arkansas ruling by SCOTUS to allow the capital punishment execution of inmates and what their rulings will be in the future for abortion will be in contrast for both rulings - it is unnerving how one side or the other has to have it both ways where they allow executions but then rule against abortions and vise versa.

it would be logical to allow executions for heinous crimes and to allow abortions through choice by the parent as a natural compromise that should not be so difficult to accomplish. I believe it is the radical right and not the left that is the problem.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The reality is not in the "middle at all" The reality is that the religious right has fabricated this who thing about Christian persecution, and they have been doing it for a long time. Those of them who actually believe that Christianity is under attack are suffering from a bad case of paranoid delusions and a persecution complex.

The Persecution Myth That Will Never Die | Right Wing Watch

You rely on Right Wing Watch for your info? That would be the equivalent of the right relying on Hannity for facts.........

I guess you didn't notice that it is annotated with my own remarks

Yeah I did but that doesn't change the fact that your conclusions are based in bias and hatred.

Hatred??!! Bias?? Where is the bias? What is it that you can refute, and where EXACTLY did I or the author express hatred? Interesting how you first accuse me of not thinking for myself and then say that I'm biased and hatful. Show me a sign that you have a working brain.

All I have to do is point to your postings to prove it.

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

 

[Ringel05]

You rely on Right Wing Watch for your info? That would be the equivalent of the right relying on Hannity for facts.........

I guess you didn't notice that it is annotated with my own remarks

Yeah I did but that doesn't change the fact that your conclusions are based in bias and hatred.

Hatred??!! Bias?? Where is the bias? What is it that you can refute, and where EXACTLY did I or the author express hatred? Interesting how you first accuse me of not thinking for myself and then say that I'm biased and hatful. Show me a sign that you have a working brain.

All I have to do is point to your postings to prove it.

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I guess you didn't notice that it is annotated with my own remarks

Yeah I did but that doesn't change the fact that your conclusions are based in bias and hatred.

Hatred??!! Bias?? Where is the bias? What is it that you can refute, and where EXACTLY did I or the author express hatred? Interesting how you first accuse me of not thinking for myself and then say that I'm biased and hatful. Show me a sign that you have a working brain.

All I have to do is point to your postings to prove it.

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

 

[Ringel05]

Yeah I did but that doesn't change the fact that your conclusions are based in bias and hatred.

Hatred??!! Bias?? Where is the bias? What is it that you can refute, and where EXACTLY did I or the author express hatred? Interesting how you first accuse me of not thinking for myself and then say that I'm biased and hatful. Show me a sign that you have a working brain.

All I have to do is point to your postings to prove it.

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hatred??!! Bias?? Where is the bias? What is it that you can refute, and where EXACTLY did I or the author express hatred? Interesting how you first accuse me of not thinking for myself and then say that I'm biased and hatful. Show me a sign that you have a working brain.

All I have to do is point to your postings to prove it.

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

 

[Ringel05]

All I have to do is point to your postings to prove it.

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

 

[BreezeWood]

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

.

My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

 

[Ringel05]

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

.

My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

 

[BreezeWood]

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

.

My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

I agree with you that life is much better today than in the past for I would guess everyone as a whole - I do wonder if time will catch-up to the next generations that the change has not been enough ... as global warming, asphalt jungle and agradepletion for starters.

 

[Ringel05]

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

.

My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

I agree with you that life is much better today than in the past for I would guess everyone as a whole - I do wonder if time will catch-up to the next generations that the change has not been enough ... as global warming, asphalt jungle and agradepletion for starters.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Look Dude, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time dealing with a candidate for anger management who decides to troll me, which is exactly what you have been doing since you first commented on my posts. However, I will say this: Factual information about how some Christians have abused and perverted the meaning of religious liberty to advance and agenda of oppression against those who they disapprove of- while claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against-is not an expression of hatred. It is dealing with reality.

And, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything stated in the article from Right Wing Watch/ People for the American Way that I posted, that you implied was bogus. A bit of advise, before you post stupid shit, know how you will defend it. You might save some face that way. Now run along and don't bother me.

Then I missed it because that is not the way you came across initially but as I pointed out to others there are some, even on this board, that would regulate any religion and especially Christianity to only be practiced in their homes and places of worship, to be occasionally seen but not heard. There are also those who would ban any and all religions, luckily the extremists on both sides are in the minority. There is also always bleed over in any movement where the innocent are subject to censor and attack because of affiliation, perceived or otherwise, hence some who are attacked as extremists are in fact not so yes, the reality is somewhere in the middle. If you had done what I suggested and read the exchange I referenced I would not have had to repeat it. Trust me when I say your belief is no more perfect than theirs as you both are human, or do you claim Godlike powers of infallibility.

OK, Now you're sounding a bit more reasonable. A few comments and thoughts:
I'm not advocating the regulation of religion. Quite the opposite I believe in the Constitution and the first amendment. I do not advocate restricting religion to the home or place of worship. Although I personally think that religion is a crutch to deal with adversity and the unknown, and that all monotheistic, authoritarian religions are abhorrent, I fully support the rights of those who believe to worship and live their lives as they see fit.

However, I do oppose the expression and practice of religion-any religion-on government property where those who do not adhere to that religion are subjected to it against their will. A street corner preacher is one thing-that is freedom of speech. government promotion of religion is something else entirely

I also oppose allowing business owners to use religious freedom to discriminate against those who they disapprove of. That is directly related to the piece that I posted on the changing definition of religious freedom

I also oppose allowing groups or individuals to use religion as a weapon, as I have documented. No one should be allowed to hypocritically claim religious freedom while using religion to deny others their religious freedom, or FREEDON FROM RELIGION.

I do not advocate banning religion or censorship.

I am aware of the fact that my beliefs are not "perfect" whatever that means. I am always open to learn and consider new ideas. However, my views come down on the side of freedom of expression and lifestyle, and equality. "Their" beliefs are often oppressive and judgmental and their behavior seeks to bend others to conform to those beliefs. They want " freedom" for themselves but not others who they have a problem with. There is an expression that says "the right to swing your arm end where your fist meets the other guys nose." That is where I'm at. Live and let live. Are we good now? By the way, these are all original ideas. No cutting and pasting.

Okay, then we are obviously in agreement as far as the separation of church and state, after all our government is secular by design. The problem you're running into is change and the natural human resistance to it coupled with what is considered by many belief and tradition passed down from our founding fathers. When a group of people feel marginalized (real or perceived) they fight back, blacks, gays, all other minorities and now Christians, some become more radicalized than most, it's to be expected. From a sociological viewpoint what we're seeing is a back lash against what some perceive as progressive ideals run amok, right or wrong that is the sociopolitical mechanism currently in play. As I love telling others, welcome to the world of freedom and politics.

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

Thank you but I know what I'm up against. I will continue to work for what I perceive as - NO , for what I know in my heart to be- change for the better, and against the forces that would take us back to the dark ages. I don't care who doesn't like that, or how it makes them feel.

 

[ding]

Let me help then.

ra·tion·al·i·za·tion

/ˌraSH(ə)n(ə)ləˈzāSH(ə)n,ˌraSH(ə)n(ə)līˈzāSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: rationalization; plural noun: rationalizations; noun: rationalisation; plural noun: rationalisations

1. the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
"most people are prone to self-deceptive rationalization"

And who do you porpose are the ones who are "rationalising"? Me, or those who insist that "America is growing hostile to Christians"?

Both to differing degrees, it's a highly politicized issue, some choose to view it a pervasive, others like you choose to view it differently, both views are highly subjective based on pre-existing bias which obviously leads to self rationalizations. As with most highly politicized issues the reality is frequently somewhere in the middle.

Rather like to see your evidence of this. You seem to be suggesting that, at least to some degree, America is becoming hostile to Christianity in general. And what would be your evidence of this? Are there churches that are being shut down? Are Christians being denied their right to assemble, and worship? How, precisely, is Christianity being attacked? Not, mind you, efforts to stop Christians from infringing on the rights of others in the name of their "religious convictions", but actual attack on, and infringement of Christians' right to lawfully practice their religion.

Perspective is everything......... It's difficult in this area to show evidence as one person's convictions are another's infringement and vice versa plus convictions can be viewed as positive or negative depending on the viewer's interpretation.
There are Christians who want to impose their idea of what society should look like and blame non-Christians for all the evils in the world. Conversely there are non-Christians who blame Christians for all the evils in the world and and would ban or bar the practice of Christianity or any religion for that matter. Granted both those extremes are thankfully in the minority but they do exist.
Let me ask you a question that may answer yours, do you think religious people have a right to political representation or not, political representation that espouses and promotes their viewpoint?

Sure they should. However this does not translate to "Christians have a right to have their religious views codified into law". Just as Muslims have a right to political representation, pagans have a right to political representation, and every other person, regardless of their religious bent, has a right to political representation. However, none of them have the right to have their religious views codified into law. We have a congress that is over 90% Christian. Are you suggesting that Christians don't have political representation? Just how much of Congress would you suggest should be Christian, in order to consider that Christians have "political representation"?

Political representation like the belief that the right to life begins when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence? Because if that is what you mean, then you were not serious about what you wrote when you said they have the right to be politically represented.

I could go down the list of social issues and not one of them is a religious view. No one is asking you to believe in Jesus.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yes there is a resistance to change. But human civilization is in a constant state of flux and where would we be without change.? Women would still be considered the property of men. We would still have slavery and child labor. I could go on but you get the idea. If Christians or anyone else are resistant to change and feel set upon, I do not consider it my problem. It is their problem. They do not have to accept those changes in their own life, but they do have to allow others to move forward . No one has the right to hold others back and to thwart their progress based on their religious or political beliefs.

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

.

My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

I agree with you that life is much better today than in the past for I would guess everyone as a whole - I do wonder if time will catch-up to the next generations that the change has not been enough ... as global warming, asphalt jungle and agradepletion for starters.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

I made it to pg 2, so much for the criticism about copy/paste ... maybe history repeats itself because the same people have always been in charge - rightwing religious fanatics - don't get me wrong I do hope to make it to the Everlasting.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Speaking of religious bullies:

100 Days Of Trump: Delivering For The Extreme Religious Right | Right Wing Watch

By aligning behind Trump, Religious Right leaders exposed their family values posturing as nothing more than a sham.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More examples of religious right hatred and bullying:

Dave Daubenmire Announces Protest Of ‘Sodomite Homosexual Spirits’ Behind ‘The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told’ | Right Wing Watch

David Whitney: Government Should Be Christian-Only | Right Wing Watch

Bryan Fischer Really, Really Wants The LGBTQ Community To Give The Rainbow Back To God | Right Wing Watch

The Religious Right’s Twisted View Of Religious Freedom | Right Wing Watch

This kind of bat shit stupidity, and fear mongering just does not exist on the left!!

 

[Ringel05]

Like I've said many times, what does right or wrong (both can be and are subjective at times) have anything to do with it? I didn't say I was against change or that I was trying to stop it, just pointing out what you're up against.
As for it's not your problem...... Actually yes it is as that's what you're fighting including the perception by them that they're being marginalized in today's society, your attitude towards them give impetus to that feeling so you have conflict, push and pull. My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

.

My personal sociological mantra has been for most of my life, "the only thing that doesn't change is change".

true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

I agree with you that life is much better today than in the past for I would guess everyone as a whole - I do wonder if time will catch-up to the next generations that the change has not been enough ... as global warming, asphalt jungle and agradepletion for starters.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

I made it to pg 2, so much for the criticism about copy/paste ... maybe history repeats itself because the same people have always been in charge - rightwing religious fanatics - don't get me wrong I do hope to make it to the Everlasting.

Copy an paste was a link to a book on pdf, not like I'm gonna try and paraphrase or recreate an entire tome in my own words on a message board......... That's a silly analogy.
As for rightwing religious fanatics having been the only ones in charge..........., something more than HS history would go far to dispel that myth........

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny. I don't see a hostility towards bitter atheists

 

[BreezeWood]

.
true ...

though a little deceptive by which direction the change is occurring for there to be an advanced outcome, extinction is not the desired goal for most seeking positive results.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

.

Let me guess, you're an optimist.......

I agree with you that life is much better today than in the past for I would guess everyone as a whole - I do wonder if time will catch-up to the next generations that the change has not been enough ... as global warming, asphalt jungle and agradepletion for starters.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

.

I have somewhat different concerns as history has a way of repeating itself, people are involved.........
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

I made it to pg 2, so much for the criticism about copy/paste ... maybe history repeats itself because the same people have always been in charge - rightwing religious fanatics - don't get me wrong I do hope to make it to the Everlasting.

Copy an paste was a link to a book on pdf, not like I'm gonna try and paraphrase or recreate an entire tome in my own words on a message board......... That's a silly analogy.
As for rightwing religious fanatics having been the only ones in charge..........., something more than HS history would go far to dispel that myth........

.

As for rightwing religious fanatics having been the only ones in charge..........., something more than HS history would go far to dispel that myth........

whatever that is, I thought you liked putting it in your own words. by history when was that time religion was not in charge other than early 20th century when they began receiving what they were dishing out ... was that something new.