Political Crossfire Forums

[Silkheat]

I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

[Todd D.]

Quote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.
I think your definition of "bigotry" is a little off. Certainly no one opposed to child molestation would be called a "bigot" for voicing that concern, would they? Discriminating, perhaps (though I think that word has an unecessarily bad connotation to it), but not bigotry. Bigotry is reserved to immutable and irrelevent characteristics such as sex, race, hair color, etc.

Quote: If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.
Most Christians view abortion as the termination of a life. To that end, what you just said makes as much sense as me saying "If you think assault is wrong, don't assault someone and if people ask your opinion then you can tell them". With this you can make a decent argument that an abortion violates the right to non-aggression against a living entity.

Quote: If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.
On this, we agree.

Quote: If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.
Stem Cell research is currently legal, but federal funding is limited. Were federal funding to further open up, they would be forced to "participate in" stem cell research because it would be their tax dollars funding such programs. That's where the bigger issue lies, in my opinion.

Quote: However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.
No, the common meaning of bigot used today is prejudiced or intolerance of viewpoints based on immutable characteristics. E.G "I hate blacks because they are dumb". Being unintelligent has nothing to do with race, so the prejudice does not hold.

Yes, "officially" your definition is correct, but in the pejoritive sense that it is commonly used in today, the actions that you list are not those of a bigot.

Quote: I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.
Your choices, just like mine, are limited by the rights that you are guaranteed provided they infringe on no one else's rights. I have no problem with that.

[mODULAR mAN]

I think the examples are of Right Wing Conservatives, not Xians in general. They are the modern political platform stuff of American Xians who claim they can support those things in the Bible.

Being abigot, makes you a bigot and you can use whatever justification you like.

It's EASIER to justify bigotry with Xianity, IMO, since there are plenty of sources from which to draw.

After all, one of the biggest aspects of bing a Xian is to discriminate between "good" and "evil". THere is the concept that God has laid out clear, absolute laws to follow.

Of course, each Xian subjectively picks which ones they want to follow.

"Thou shall not murder" except if you are in war, in which collateral damage is just an unfortunate consequence. Or, the death penalty (in which a defensless person is murdered).

Not to mention the typical views on gays.


Anyhow, bigotry is a result of how you are raised and your personal choice. It is irrational and can be "justified" by anyone, no matter how open-minded they claim to be.


But, it is my opinion that religion helps it along since religion rests on such subjective, and authoritive-less, decisions, yet is claimed to be absolute truth. Plus, IMO, Xianity is a morally bankrupt religion, ultimately - though many Xians are not.

[Silkheat]

Todd D. wrote:
I think your definition of "bigotry" is a little off. Certainly no one opposed to child molestation would be called a "bigot" for voicing that concern, would they? Discriminating, perhaps (though I think that word has an unecessarily bad connotation to it), but not bigotry. Bigotry is reserved to immutable and irrelevent characteristics such as sex, race, hair color, etc.

I think you need to look up the defintion:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance ; One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


While it can be directed at groups, sex, and races it is the general intolerenace of others who are differ.

This happens a lot in Christianity as you can see for yourself in the War on Drugs. People who do not share the same morality are oppressed with force, jail, and even death. Christians are intolerent of non-christians and seek to control them through laws and force on some issues. THis kind of intolerance is dangerous as prohibition has proven. O also find their bigotry toward homosexuals reprehensible.

Quote:
Most Christians view abortion as the termination of a life. To that end, what you just said makes as much sense as me saying "If you think assault is wrong, don't assault someone and if people ask your opinion then you can tell them". With this you can make a decent argument that an abortion violates the right to non-aggression against a living entity.

THis is where the definition of where life begins comes into play. I don't believe a fetus is a life before the 2nd trimester. WHy should your beliefs come before mine. Your analogy of assualt is faulty as it deals with a victim.


Quote:
Stem Cell research is currently legal, but federal funding is limited. Were federal funding to further open up, they would be forced to "participate in" stem cell research because it would be their tax dollars funding such programs. That's where the bigger issue lies, in my opinion.

The government shouldn't fund any research, I agree to a point. The government shouldn't give money to religions either.

Quote:
No, the common meaning of bigot used today is prejudiced or intolerance of viewpoints based on immutable characteristics. E.G "I hate blacks because they are dumb". Being unintelligent has nothing to do with race, so the prejudice does not hold.

Yes, "officially" your definition is correct, but in the pejoritive sense that it is commonly used in today, the actions that you list are not those of a bigot.

I see your point, but I don't feel it applies. Bigotry deals with intolerance, and I have shown how it relates to Christians in their pursuits to legislate their version of morality. THey strive to deprive many people of their freedoms of choice.

Quote:
Your choices, just like mine, are limited by the rights that you are guaranteed provided they infringe on no one else's rights. I have no problem with that.

Exactly, show me a victim then I will show you a crime. Until that time the Christians need to leave pot smokers, homosexuals, and women alone.

[perdidochas]

Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

YOu have a strange definition of bigoted.

Silkheat wrote: If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If we didn't think that abortion was killing a human life, we would leave it alone. However, we do think abortion is killing a human life, and we aren't going to let people kill humans unnecessarily without saying it's wrong.

Silkheat wrote: If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

Christians have nothing against drugs, other than that they are breaking the existing law.

Silkheat wrote: If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.

Again, the whole destruction of human life issue.


Silkheat wrote: However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

Please explain your definition of bigot. Nothing you've described so far has nothing to do with the common definition of bigot. If we were saying you were an inferior person for not being Christian, that would be bigoted. Nothing you describes has anything to do with bigotry.

Silkheat wrote: I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

I don't care what you worship. I don't care what you do, provided it doesn't hurt other human beings. Abortion kills other human beings, as does stem cell research. Drugs only effects you, so it doesn't bother me.

[perdidochas]

Silkheat wrote: Todd D. wrote:
I think your definition of "bigotry" is a little off. Certainly no one opposed to child molestation would be called a "bigot" for voicing that concern, would they? Discriminating, perhaps (though I think that word has an unecessarily bad connotation to it), but not bigotry. Bigotry is reserved to immutable and irrelevent characteristics such as sex, race, hair color, etc.

I think you need to look up the defintion:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance ; One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


While it can be directed at groups, sex, and races it is the general intolerenace of others who are differ.

This happens a lot in Christianity as you can see for yourself in the War on Drugs. People who do not share the same morality are oppressed with force, jail, and even death. Christians are intolerent of non-christians and seek to control them through laws and force on some issues. THis kind of intolerance is dangerous as prohibition has proven. O also find their bigotry toward homosexuals reprehensible.

Quote:
Most Christians view abortion as the termination of a life. To that end, what you just said makes as much sense as me saying "If you think assault is wrong, don't assault someone and if people ask your opinion then you can tell them". With this you can make a decent argument that an abortion violates the right to non-aggression against a living entity.

THis is where the definition of where life begins comes into play. I don't believe a fetus is a life before the 2nd trimester. WHy should your beliefs come before mine. Your analogy of assualt is faulty as it deals with a victim.


Quote:
Stem Cell research is currently legal, but federal funding is limited. Were federal funding to further open up, they would be forced to "participate in" stem cell research because it would be their tax dollars funding such programs. That's where the bigger issue lies, in my opinion.

The government shouldn't fund any research, I agree to a point. The government shouldn't give money to religions either.

Quote:
No, the common meaning of bigot used today is prejudiced or intolerance of viewpoints based on immutable characteristics. E.G "I hate blacks because they are dumb". Being unintelligent has nothing to do with race, so the prejudice does not hold.

Yes, "officially" your definition is correct, but in the pejoritive sense that it is commonly used in today, the actions that you list are not those of a bigot.

I see your point, but I don't feel it applies. Bigotry deals with intolerance, and I have shown how it relates to Christians in their pursuits to legislate their version of morality. THey strive to deprive many people of their freedoms of choice.

Well, do you expect us to stand by while humans beings are being killed? That is our view of what abortion and embryonic stem cell research are. If you're gay, atheist, pagan, whatever, I don't care. That's your business. If you want to smoke pot and jimson weed and peyote and deadly nightshade, I don't care.

Now, I do understand how you can have the perception that some Christians are bigoted against homosexuals. That is a correct usage of bigot. But the abortion/ESR/pot smoking example doesn't fit.

Quote:
Your choices, just like mine, are limited by the rights that you are guaranteed provided they infringe on no one else's rights. I have no problem with that.

Exactly, show me a victim then I will show you a crime. Until that time the Christians need to leave pot smokers, homosexuals, and women alone.[/quote]

In

[Todd D.]

Quote: I think you need to look up the defintion:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bLiarg&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance ; One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


While it can be directed at groups, sex, and races it is the general intolerenace of others who are differ.
Like I said, using the dictionairy definition, you are correct, but the fact is that the word "Bigot" carries with it a negative connotation, and that negative connotation comes with its association towards not only intolerance (we are all intolerant of certain things, but that doesn't make us all "bigots"), but intolerance of immutable and irrelevant characteristics.

Quote: O also find their bigotry toward homosexuals reprehensible.
The fact is that most Christians consider homosexual actions to be contrary to God's law. While I disagree with secular authorities legislating that law, there's nothing inherantly intolerant with believing that homosexual actions are immoral. I do, however, agree that too many take it too far.

Quote: THis is where the definition of where life begins comes into play. I don't believe a fetus is a life before the 2nd trimester. WHy should your beliefs come before mine.
I could just as easily say that I have a right to kill a five year old because I don't believe a child is a life until they are 13. Why should your religious views come before mine? In my opinion, when dealing with human life, we must err on the side of caution.

Quote: The government shouldn't fund any research, I agree to a point. The government shouldn't give money to religions either.
Agreed.

Quote: I see your point, but I don't feel it applies. Bigotry deals with intolerance, and I have shown how it relates to Christians in their pursuits to legislate their version of morality. THey strive to deprive many people of their freedoms of choice.
I agree on some things, most notably your examples of marraige and drug laws. However in areas where another human life is at stake, I don't believe humans have the right to "choose" to end that life.

Quote: Exactly, show me a victim then I will show you a crime. Until that time the Christians need to leave pot smokers, homosexuals, and women alone.
Homosexuals and Pot Smokers I agree with to a point, but again, the abortion issue has nothing to do with any value judgment on the women, but more to do with the inherant life they feel a fetus represents. That's not bigotry.

[ChuckBerry]

Questions framed this way seek to put Christians on the defensive. If you were to be intellectually honest you would attack the broader implications of ALL laws as being coercive, not just laws that Christians advocate. While in a democratic system where I can propose laws, I will propose those that I think preserve human life and lead toward a more civil society and make no apologies for it, loaded language notwithstanding.

[Gilbert1908]

Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

In fact it is impossible to properly practice Christianity and be a bigot, it is no less a sin than any other.

[John]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

In fact it is impossible to properly practice Christianity and be a bigot, it is no less a sin than any other.

In the true sense of the word I agree.

But modernists have redefined the meaning of that word..

In the same way that they have redefined the meaning of the word tolerance.

[Gilbert1908]

John wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

In fact it is impossible to properly practice Christianity and be a bigot, it is no less a sin than any other.

In the true sense of the word I agree.

But modernists have redefined the meaning of that word..

In the same way that they have redefined the meaning of the word tolerance.

I have never seen the need to accept an incorrect or corrupted meaning or premise, so I do not believe either you or I need to "qualify" our perfectly sound position on the matter.

[toddytodd]

Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

I think if you are a bigot, you are a bigot, regardless of religious belief. Do some christians and bigotry go hand-n-hand? Yes. Are they suppose to? No.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

I think if you are a bigot, you are a bigot, regardless of religious belief. Do some christians and bigotry go hand-n-hand? Yes. Are they suppose to? No.

You are of course correct, in fact the question itself reveals a bigotry on the part of the questioner, as if ONLY Christians are opposed to drugs and abortion. In the United States it is pretty easy to paint Christians with ANY belief you want since 80+% of the population considers itself Christian.

But my question is simpler, why shouldn't ANYONE or ANY GROUP seek to have their point of view on important issues heard and acted upon within a democracy???? Isnt that the POINT?

This idea that religious people should be seen and not heard (Dont speak unless spoken to) is simply contrary to every aspect of the American tradition. Everyone should make MORE noise not less, silence is death to a democracy.

Again we have this theme of "forcing" and rights restricting. HOW is this being done??? How do Christians "force" things in society?

Go to the supreme court to argue a point of view?

Create legislative agendas to seek input into the democratic process?

Speak out about issues they feel are important and impactful?

What part of the democratic process which is available to ALL Americans would you seek to close off to people who hold religious beliefs you dont care for? Because as soon as you succeed be prepared for someone who doesn't like your point of view to close off the same part of the process for YOU.

[F'losrix]

Etymology of the word 'bigot':

"1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a b****). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bigot&searchmode=none

So, the word definitely has roots in religion-based bigotry. It is commonly defined as an extreme intolerance for viewpoints that differ from one's own, and is usually viewed as based on some unfounded prejudice. Someone who clings stubbornly to their opinion, refusing to acknowledge facts that contradict it would be a bigot, in my opinion.

What a bigot is not, is someone who merely disagrees with you. Unfortunately, we see a lot of people who try to excuse their actual bigotry by saying they're merely disagreeing, when in fact their arguments have been debunked and it's clear they're simply refusing to acknowledge it.

Whether or not the specifics of Christianity make its practitioners more likely to be bigots than those of other religions or atheists is open to debate, but in my experience (admittedly anecdotal and therefore not submitted as an offer of proof), I would not say that in practice they are. What I would say, is that there are a lot of really vocal, bigoted Christians giving the rest a bad name.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Silkheat wrote: I realize that Christian beliefs vary widely as does their definitions of what Jesus wants etc. However, Christian supporters are responsible for many extremely bigoted things. The war on drugs is a bigoted response to the morality of others. Christians used the government to enforce their beliefs, which is a very bigoted thing to do. Christians are trying to enforce their morality on abortion, which is very bigoted.

If you are a christian and think abortions are wrong; don't have one and if people ask for you opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think that drugs are bad; don't use them and if people ask your opinion tell them.

If you are a christian and think stem cell research is wrong; don't participate in it.


However if you are christian you do not have the right to limit the freedom of choice of others. That is being a bigot.

I support your right to be a Christian and make your own choices, support my right to worship what I want and the ability to make my own choices unhindered by threat of force.

I think if you are a bigot, you are a bigot, regardless of religious belief. Do some christians and bigotry go hand-n-hand? Yes. Are they suppose to? No.

You are of course correct, in fact the question itself reveals a bigotry on the part of the questioner, as if ONLY Christians are opposed to drugs and abortion. In the United States it is pretty easy to paint Christians with ANY belief you want since 80+% of the population considers itself Christian.

But my question is simpler, why shouldn't ANYONE or ANY GROUP seek to have their point of view on important issues heard and acted upon within a democracy???? Isnt that the POINT?

This idea that religious people should be seen and not heard (Dont speak unless spoken to) is simply contrary to every aspect of the American tradition. Everyone should make MORE noise not less, silence is death to a democracy.

Again we have this theme of "forcing" and rights restricting. HOW is this being done??? How do Christians "force" things in society?

Go to the supreme court to argue a point of view?

Create legislative agendas to seek input into the democratic process?

Speak out about issues they feel are important and impactful?

What part of the democratic process which is available to ALL Americans would you seek to close off to people who hold religious beliefs you dont care for? Because as soon as you succeed be prepared for someone who doesn't like your point of view to close off the same part of the process for YOU.

Quote: But my question is simpler, why shouldn't ANYONE or ANY GROUP seek to have their point of view on important issues heard and acted upon within a democracy???? Isnt that the POINT? A very legitimate question. I think the biggest problem with a religion trying to have their views enacted upon a group that may or may not share these views is the fact of where these point of views come from. Christians may see them coming from God - the ultimate source. However, there is no proof that can be shown that God exists, so that, in my opinion, is something that others look at and question: "How should these people (christians) try to govern my life on views they believe come from somthing that A) I don't believe in and B) can't be proven?"
Quote: How do Christians "force" things in society? Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal. There no evidence to suggest that gay marriage would do anything to any straight person's marriage, or marriage in general. Other than 'protecting marriage' (from nothing), there really isn't any other legitimate reason to make it illegal other than out of hate and distaste towards those who are gay. While christianity is suppose to be about love, it has, for many people, turned into a exclusive society - a country club if you will. There are those who doubt this, but it has happened and continues to happen. It is my 'personal revelation' that I have seen and experienced with my own eyes in my own life and lives of friends and family. Instead of "let go and let God", many are "letting go" and letting fear run their lives.
Quote: What part of the democratic process which is available to ALL Americans would you seek to close off to people who hold religious beliefs you don't care for? I personally never said, nor inferred that - assume what you will. Some believe that is what is necessary, some don't. Religious people have the right to exercise their beliefs in the democratic process, even if they aren't correct or kind hearted. Don't be cryin' about things not getting passed as many christian views are becoming less and less favored in America because of how they are being addressed with the public. However, as with everything christian in politics, these views won't last long if they get anything passed.

[John]

Quote: Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal.

Illegal as in criminal? I don't think so.....I was under the impression that they wanted to keep things like they already are.

Just because something isn't recognized by the government doesn't make it a crime. Homosexuals can get "married" (it kinda contradicts the definition of the word...but whatever)....the government just won't recognize it in ways that governments recognize things.

[Gilbert1908]

[quote="toddytodd"] Gilbert1908 wrote:

Quote: But my question is simpler, why shouldn't ANYONE or ANY GROUP seek to have their point of view on important issues heard and acted upon within a democracy???? Isnt that the POINT?

A very legitimate question. I think the biggest problem with a religion trying to have their views enacted upon a group that may or may not share these views is the fact of where these point of views come from. Christians may see them coming from God - the ultimate source. However, there is no proof that can be shown that God exists, so that, in my opinion, is something that others look at and question: "How should these people (christians) try to govern my life on views they believe come from somthing that A) I don't believe in and B) can't be proven?" If ANY groups views get enacted it doesn't matter what the origin is, it only matters that the law is constitutional. Some number of people don't like various laws.


toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: How do Christians "force" things in society?

Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal. you have it backwards, same sex marriage is and has NEVER been legal and Gay Activists are seeking to make it legal. Marriage was a religious institution adopted by society because of the obvious benefits. What you will find is that if Gay Activists want to assure equal rights under the law and push civil unions there will be very little significant opposition. And NO ONE should be seeking to restrict civil rights of ANYONE.


toddytodd wrote: There no evidence to suggest that gay marriage would do anything to any straight person's marriage, or marriage in general. Other than 'protecting marriage' (from nothing), there really isn't any other legitimate reason to make it illegal other than out of hate and distaste towards those who are gay. While christianity is suppose to be about love, it has, for many people, turned into a exclusive society - a country club if you will. There are those who doubt this, but it has happened and continues to happen. It is my 'personal revelation' that I have seen and experienced with my own eyes in my own life and lives of friends and family. Instead of "let go and let God", many are "letting go" and letting fear run their lives. In my Catholic faith marriage is a sacrement, it is a religious issue to call a union of two men or women marriage not a legal one. Again what is done in a secular setting, as a legal contract is of no consequence to the sacrement of Marriage.



toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: What part of the democratic process which is available to ALL Americans would you seek to close off to people who hold religious beliefs you don't care for? I personally never said, nor inferred that - assume what you will. Some believe that is what is necessary, some don't. Religious people have the right to exercise their beliefs in the democratic process, even if they aren't correct or kind hearted. Don't be cryin' about things not getting passed as many christian views are becoming less and less favored in America because of how they are being addressed with the public. However, as with everything christian in politics, these views won't last long if they get anything passed. This comment was not directed at you in particular.

[toddytodd]

[quote="Gilbert1908"] toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

Quote: But my question is simpler, why shouldn't ANYONE or ANY GROUP seek to have their point of view on important issues heard and acted upon within a democracy???? Isnt that the POINT?

A very legitimate question. I think the biggest problem with a religion trying to have their views enacted upon a group that may or may not share these views is the fact of where these point of views come from. Christians may see them coming from God - the ultimate source. However, there is no proof that can be shown that God exists, so that, in my opinion, is something that others look at and question: "How should these people (christians) try to govern my life on views they believe come from something that A) I don't believe in and B) can't be proven?" If ANY groups views get enacted it doesn't matter what the origin is, it only matters that the law is constitutional. Some number of people don't like various laws.


toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: How do Christians "force" things in society?

Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal. you have it backwards, same sex marriage is and has NEVER been legal and Gay Activists are seeking to make it legal. Marriage was a religious institution adopted by society because of the obvious benefits. What you will find is that if Gay Activists want to assure equal rights under the law and push civil unions there will be very little significant opposition. And NO ONE should be seeking to restrict civil rights of ANYONE.


toddytodd wrote: There no evidence to suggest that gay marriage would do anything to any straight person's marriage, or marriage in general. Other than 'protecting marriage' (from nothing), there really isn't any other legitimate reason to make it illegal other than out of hate and distaste towards those who are gay. While christianity is suppose to be about love, it has, for many people, turned into a exclusive society - a country club if you will. There are those who doubt this, but it has happened and continues to happen. It is my 'personal revelation' that I have seen and experienced with my own eyes in my own life and lives of friends and family. Instead of "let go and let God", many are "letting go" and letting fear run their lives. In my Catholic faith marriage is a sacrement, it is a religious issue to call a union of two men or women marriage not a legal one. Again what is done in a secular setting, as a legal contract is of no consequence to the sacrement of Marriage.



toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: What part of the democratic process which is available to ALL Americans would you seek to close off to people who hold religious beliefs you don't care for? I personally never said, nor inferred that - assume what you will. Some believe that is what is necessary, some don't. Religious people have the right to exercise their beliefs in the democratic process, even if they aren't correct or kind hearted. Don't be cryin' about things not getting passed as many christian views are becoming less and less favored in America because of how they are being addressed with the public. However, as with everything christian in politics, these views won't last long if they get anything passed. This comment was not directed at you in particular.

Quote: If ANY groups views get enacted it doesn't matter what the origin is, it only matters that the law is constitutional. Some number of people don't like various laws. That is a good point. However, logic fails most people and no matter how well someone argues about 'why' someone doesn't like something, the fact remains that they don't. My explanation wasn't an attempt to justify the reason why, but only explain one possible reason why.
Quote: ...you have it backwards, same sex marriage is and has NEVER been legal and Gay Activists are seeking to make it legal. And as a counter, groups are trying to 'head them off at the pass' and make it illegal. The fact of the matter is, there is no actual reason why it should be made illegal other than to show a group of people that others 'don't like what they do'. That is a poor excuse to promote hatred (as if there is a legitimate one).
Quote: Marriage was a religious institution adopted by society because of the obvious benefits. Perhaps. There are pros as well as cons to marriage. One isn't more right or more wrong than the other - they just...are.
Some christian churches perform gay marriages. Seems that some sects of christianity thinks it is OK, while other don't. So is this going to end up a battle between religious divisions - yet again? Or will one group start feeling big enough of themselves to say the other group isn't acting 'christian' or aren't 'christians'? If the christian church can't keep this 'in check', how do they plan to? Make it illegal so everyone has to abide by it.
Quote: What you will find is that if Gay Activists want to assure equal rights under the law and push civil unions there will be very little significant opposition. That is not correct. Many states (mine included) have outlawed civil unions and their legal benefits. (Some have gone so far as to threaten lawsuits to companies that give benefits to unmarried couples.) Why? Because it is easier to make civil unions illegal than tampering with marriage and it is a 'step' in the direction they want to go, which is to make gay marriage illegal.
Quote: In my Catholic faith marriage is a sacrement, it is a religious issue to call a union of two men or women marriage not a legal one. Again what is done in a secular setting, as a legal contract is of no consequence to the sacrement of Marriage. And I personally respect this point of view. However, a church should be allowed to marry whoever they want, however, they want, where ever they want, when ever they want, and not have that marriage have any legal benefits at all. That is for the gov't to decide on. The church shouldn't make the laws for everyone, but within their organization only.
I might point out, still, no one has been able to provide me with any real evidence that would show how gay marriage would be detrimental. If someone else's marriage effects another person's marriage, maybe those other people shouldn't have been married to begin with??

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: If ANY groups views get enacted it doesn't matter what the origin is, it only matters that the law is constitutional. Some number of people don't like various laws.
But aren't all other groups asked to back up the reasons for the laws they ask to be enacted? For example, seat belt laws were enacted because it was shown to help the safety of the populus. The reason the Gov't agreed to enact it (at some cost and time) was because there was scientific evidence that seatbelts save lives.

If some group didn't like it, undoubtably they could appeal to an equally valid level of evidence.


toddytodd wrote: Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal.

Gilbert1908 wrote: you have it backwards, same sex marriage is and has NEVER been legal and Gay Activists are seeking to make it legal. Marriage was a religious institution adopted by society because of the obvious benefits. What you will find is that if Gay Activists want to assure equal rights under the law and push civil unions there will be very little significant opposition. And NO ONE should be seeking to restrict civil rights of ANYONE.
"Traditional marriage" is anything but. It has changed a lot over time.
The first problem, with regard to the US getting involved, was using the contemporary definition of marriage at the time, and then tying it to finaces and legal issues.

It was an unfortunate overstepping of imposing morality by the State.

It is my opinion, the Gov't should get out of the business of marriage and ONLY offer Civil unions.

For example, if you want to drive on the roads, get a drivers license, but if you want to race, you have to conform to the rules of the specific track or racing body.

toddytodd wrote: In my Catholic faith marriage is a sacrement, it is a religious issue to call a union of two men or women marriage not a legal one. Again what is done in a secular setting, as a legal contract is of no consequence to the sacrement of Marriage.
I think if two men want to get married, they should just find the church that allows it. The State, however, should only offer CU's.
Even if two people get a CU (and not married in a church), they should be allowed to tell everyone "We're married" if they choose.
Marriage seems to me a highly subjective, highly personal agreement between two people, witnessed by their "tribe".

Tax benefits, hospital visits and End of Life decisions, should be legally protected by our society/gov't.



I think in a few years we will see some big changes that will, ironically, affect very few people - except for the better.

THat is, i think we'll see the Gov't get out of the business of Marriage and leave it to religous/secular institutions that wish to "sell the product", but continue to encourage long term relationship stability, and fairness, through CU's.

It seems the only rational direction to take.



(BTW, I am an Ordained Priest and can legally perfom marriages.)

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: If ANY groups views get enacted it doesn't matter what the origin is, it only matters that the law is constitutional. Some number of people don't like various laws.
But aren't all other groups asked to back up the reasons for the laws they ask to be enacted? For example, seat belt laws were enacted because it was shown to help the safety of the populus. The reason the Gov't agreed to enact it (at some cost and time) was because there was scientific evidence that seatbelts save lives.

If some group didn't like it, undoubtably they could appeal to an equally valid level of evidence.


toddytodd wrote: Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal.

Gilbert1908 wrote: you have it backwards, same sex marriage is and has NEVER been legal and Gay Activists are seeking to make it legal. Marriage was a religious institution adopted by society because of the obvious benefits. What you will find is that if Gay Activists want to assure equal rights under the law and push civil unions there will be very little significant opposition. And NO ONE should be seeking to restrict civil rights of ANYONE.
"Traditional marriage" is anything but. It has changed a lot over time.
The first problem, with regard to the US getting involved, was using the contemporary definition of marriage at the time, and then tying it to finaces and legal issues.

It was an unfortunate overstepping of imposing morality by the State.

It is my opinion, the Gov't should get out of the business of marriage and ONLY offer Civil unions.

For example, if you want to drive on the roads, get a drivers license, but if you want to race, you have to conform to the rules of the specific track or racing body.

toddytodd wrote: In my Catholic faith marriage is a sacrement, it is a religious issue to call a union of two men or women marriage not a legal one. Again what is done in a secular setting, as a legal contract is of no consequence to the sacrement of Marriage.
I think if two men want to get married, they should just find the church that allows it. The State, however, should only offer CU's.
Even if two people get a CU (and not married in a church), they should be allowed to tell everyone "We're married" if they choose.
Marriage seems to me a highly subjective, highly personal agreement between two people, witnessed by their "tribe".

Tax benefits, hospital visits and End of Life decisions, should be legally protected by our society/gov't.



I think in a few years we will see some big changes that will, ironically, affect very few people - except for the better.

THat is, i think we'll see the Gov't get out of the business of Marriage and leave it to religous/secular institutions that wish to "sell the product", but continue to encourage long term relationship stability, and fairness, through CU's.

It seems the only rational direction to take.



(BTW, I am an Ordained Priest and can legally perfom marriages.)

I don't know if the gov't will ever 'get out of marriage' - they are, unfortunately, so involved with it (and being the gov't is lazy), that it would take too much time, energy etc. to change it. Also, many older gov't officials are from an older generation - steadfast in their beliefs, no matter the evidence (or lack of) that's available.