I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Hemodoc on May 20, 2013, 12:46:21 PM
-
A Fox news reporter is under investigation as a possible "co-conspirator" of leaked information from the State Department.
ERIC HOLDER'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, already under fire for seizing AP phone records, also obtained records pertaining to Fox News' chief Washington correspondent James Rosen's efforts to report leaked material, even calling Rosen a criminal 'co-conspirator' — a charge the news organization called 'chilling.'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/justice-department-obtained-records-fox-news-journalist/
Today, a commentator on a radio talk show noted that the IRS scandal is now resulting in fewer people willing to donate to the GOP since so many have been IRS targets including 15 who gave to Romney's campaign.
These are the steps of a tyrannical government moving towards one party rule. Welcome to the beginning of Obama's banana republic.
-
'Tis the law; If you do not hold a clearance and possess classified material, you can have a free pass to the slammer. For reasons unknown to me, the press usually gets a break but not always. And don't come back with "How do you know?" or some similar, all of my military career was classified and I do know the rules.
-
'Tis the law; If you do not hold a clearance and possess classified material, you can have a free pass to the slammer. For reasons unknown to me, the press usually gets a break but not always. And don't come back with "How do you know?" or some similar, all of my military career was classified and I do know the rules.
No, not true Gerald. This was decided during Nixon and the famous/infamous Pentagon papers where the Supreme Court ruled that the NY times could publish then classified material.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/13/reviews/papers-final.html
-
I covered that. You ignored that.
Perhaps that answer is in the Pentagon Papers themselves.
-
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[2] The report was declassified and publicly released in June 2011.
/////////////////////
The President lied so it was classified. Since the papers were no more than a history, the court released them.
Gerald
-
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[2] The report was declassified and publicly released in June 2011.
/////////////////////
The President lied so it was classified. Since the papers were no more than a history, the court released them.
Gerald
Sorry, that was not the opinion of the Supreme Court since at that time they were classified. I remember those events quite well at the time.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) that the New York Times and the Washington Post could publish a classified study of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The newspapers contended that allowing the government to halt the publication on matters of urgent public interest would constitute an invalid prior restraint on free expression. The government contended further publication of the study would compromise U.S. intelligence and endanger U.S troops. The six justices in the majority wrote a three-paragraph joint, unsigned opinion that noted that prior restraints are presumptively invalid and that the government failed to carry its burden that such a prior restraint was justified in this case. Three justices dissented, emphasizing that more time was needed to carefully evaluate the thousands of pages in the Pentagon Papers to determine if the government’s national security interests were compelling. All nine justices wrote separate opinions.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/what-did-the-court-rule-in-the-pentagon-papers-case#ixzz2UcjzfWG5
-
You made my case.
-
You made my case.
Sorry, but the dissenting justices disagree with your opinion. In any case, it is not illegal for a reporter to receive information, that culpability is on the part of those releasing the information as the SCOTUS judgement maintains. This is a "chilling" effect on freedom of the press as many commentators have stated.
-
So, if we ALL agree that it is not illegal.... then why is the Fox news reporter under fire. He didn't do anything illegal..
-
Probably because he works for Fox news!!
-
Yeah. What was I thinking. ::)
-
Here is another aspect of the first amendment under attack, freedom of religion.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/san-antonio-proposal-could-bar-christians-from-city-council.html
-
Our coinage and legal tender have the phrase "In God we trust" on them.
I have no objection to people having freedom to practice their religion, but as a non-believer, I do object to having those religious beliefs given priority and imposed upon me by law.
It takes away my religious freedom of non-belief.
If you believe in a God, I am sorry for your affliction -- get help.
-
Our coinage and legal tender have the phrase "In God we trust" on them.
I have no objection to people having freedom to practice their religion, but as a non-believer, I do object to having those religious beliefs given priority and imposed upon me by law.
It takes away my religious freedom of non-belief.
If you believe in a God, I am sorry for your affliction -- get help.
No not at all my friend. Since there is no way to prove that there is no God (Do you know even half of what is in this universe?) atheism is actually a form of religion because you have to believe that there is no God. You can never prove that. Thus, your freedom to believe what you wish is also protected under the first amendment as well.
Have a great day, but I will pass on your diagnosis of my religion. I hope and pray you find that God is real in the here and now.
Take care,
Peter
-
Our coinage and legal tender have the phrase "In God we trust" on them.
I have no objection to people having freedom to practice their religion, but as a non-believer, I do object to having those religious beliefs given priority and imposed upon me by law.
It takes away my religious freedom of non-belief.
If you believe in a God, I am sorry for your affliction -- get help.
It is short for "in God we trust, all others pay cash".
While SCOTUS has refused to recognize things like the motto, and the pledge as govt sanction of religion, history shows "under God" was added during the red scare to show where were not "godless" like the commies.
Just try buying alcohol on the sabbath in many states (in NY sales are only restricted during traditional church hours - Sunday AM)
-
Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2600565716001/christians-in-the-military-barred-from-expressing-faith/?intcmp=obnetwork
The military was once one of most vocal supporter of first amendment rights but today it is leading the bandwagon against Christians expressing their faith while a muslim extremist who killed over a dozen soldiers is allowed to grow a beard in expression of his religious faith.
-
Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.
Isn't pretty much any veteran allowed to wear his/her uniform in a parade? Goodness knows, I've seen enough uniformed veterans in parades to suspect that isn't illegal for anyone.
Unless you're contending that "being gay" is a religion? Or perhaps a political position?
-
Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.
Isn't pretty much any veteran allowed to wear his/her uniform in a parade? Goodness knows, I've seen enough uniformed veterans in parades to suspect that isn't illegal for anyone.
Unless you're contending that "being gay" is a religion? Or perhaps a political position?
You can go to church expressing your lifestyle, no uniform. Go to a gay rights parade expressing your lifestyle, uniform is OK. BTW, this is a new change that was NOT in effect while I was an Army officer for 9 years.
The Ft. Hood murderer is allowed to express his religious beliefs by growing a beard against military regulations. Christians are not allowed to have a Bible on their desk. Sorry you can't see the obvious discriminatory practices against Christians in today's military under Obama. No matter, Jesus spent his entire life in a country oppressed by the Romans. But, God shall have the last say in this and all issues.
-
You can go to church expressing your lifestyle, no uniform.
I've never heard anyone compare being Christian to being gay before.
-
You can go to church expressing your lifestyle, no uniform.
I've never heard anyone compare being Christian to being gay before.
WHAT???
Sorry, simple analogy of lifestyle choices and moral choices my friend. If you are gay, go tell it on the mountain in your uniform. If you are a Christian, you are not allowed to wear a uniform or proclaim your faith by even having a Bible on your desk.
If you are a Muslim accused of murdering your fellow soldiers, how dare we prevent their religious expression including wearing a beard which is not allowed in the Army, not even a mustache.
Sorry, if you cannot see the contrary manner in which Christians are now treated in uniform, I probably cannot help you.
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html
-
As in Life, the pendulum swings.
http://forward.com/articles/3506/scandal-over-proselytizing-hits-air-force/
News
Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force
By Jennifer Siegel and E.B. Solomont
Published May 20, 2005, issue of May 20, 2005.
The U.S. Air Force Academy is embroiled in a growing scandal over alleged religious coercion, following an investigation triggered by complaints from a Jewish student distressed over evangelical Christian proselytizing.
Earlier this year, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington-based advocacy group launched an investigation. Its report alleges that academy leaders, including faculty, chaplains and senior cadets, have created an environment inhospitable to those who are not evangelical Christians.
The release of the group’s report April 28 prompted a nationwide furor, with Jewish organizations demanding a congressional investigation of the academy. The Air Force has launched its own investigation of the events, due to be released next week, but critics claim the process is flawed. Such concerns intensified last week, after a liberal Christian chaplain at the academy was transferred overseas — a move some said was in retaliation for the chaplain helping investigators examine issues of religious intolerance at the elite institution.
The swirl of allegations has pushed the Air Force Academy back into the limelight of controversy. In 2003, an investigation of the academy’s general treatment of women, as well as allegations of sexual assault, led to the dismissal of four top officers in the Air Force. The current charges, insiders say, show an institutional pattern of religious intolerance and a breach of the First Amendment’s prohibition of state-sponsored religion.
“We did find a poisoned atmosphere of discrimination,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Whether they were non-believers, Jews or mainstream Christians, there seemed to be a pervasive sense at the academy that there was only one way to heaven and, by extension, one way for you to advance your career, and that was to get with Jesus.”
The report alleges that while Christian cadets are routinely given special permission to attend off-campus prayers services on Sundays, Jews and other Saturday Sabbath observers are not given similar dispensations, and are forced instead to attend training exercises, parades and football games scheduled as official Saturday activities. It also alleges that some of the academy’s senior leadership have insinuated their faith, which is often a form of evangelical Christianity, into their professional duties: A number of faculty members, it claims, have introduced themselves to their classes as born-again Christians and encouraged students to become born-again. Officials have allegedly opened mandatory meals, trainings and ceremonies with prayer.
One of the more specific charges is that Johnny Weida, commandant of cadets, routinely initiates the call-and-response chant — “Airpower! … Rock Sir!” — which the report claims is based on the New Testament’s parable of building one’s life on the rock-hard foundation of Jesus. Another is that senior officials allowed students to advertise a showing of “The Passion of the Christ” as an academy-sponsored event and to put fliers for the event on every plate in the dining hall.
“It was really not a good situation,” said Casey Weinstein, 22, who touched off the Americans United investigation when he shared such stories with his father, Mikey, an attorney who served in the Reagan administration. “The best way I can put it is that a large vocal minority had their way at the academy with nobody to hold them in check from crossing the line between church and state.”
In a conversation with the Forward, a spokesperson at the academy said leaders are facing issues of religious intolerance head on by asking students to come forward with complaints, and by mandating that all cadets and staff watch a 50-minute video on diverse values and beliefs. The video was produced last year after the academy surveyed cadets about these issues and found that over half had heard derogatory comments or jokes of a religious nature. The 16-person task force deployed by the Air Force to assess the academy’s religious issues is expected to present its findings to acting Air Force Secretary Michael Dominguez on May 23.
Despite these efforts, critics of the Air Force Academy say that its attempts at reform are disingenuous. The Americans United report asserts that last fall, weeks after the academy began the religious sensitivity program, head football coach Fisher DeBerry hung a banner in the locker room that read, “I am a Christian first and last; I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.” The report also alleges that the very officer in charge of the academy’s equal-opportunity office, Captain Joseph Bland, refused to recognize the complaint of a self-described atheist cadet and instead attempted to proselytize the student into Catholicism.
Several observers contacted by the Forward connected the rise in religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy to the increasing numbers of evangelical Christians within its leadership, as well as to the growth of the movement’s overall size and political muscle. A central tenet of evangelical sects is the belief in proselytizing nonbelievers.
“Evangelical Christians and those who are affiliated with the religious right have been gaining a great deal of confidence in various political activities and pushing their agenda on the cultural front,” said Randall Balmer, a Columbia University professor of religion. “They have a real sense that they have enough clout to force real change.”
Colorado Springs, the hometown of the Air Force Academy, is the stronghold of America’s best-known evangelical organizations, including Focus on the Family and the 11,000-member New Life Church. Both institutions are located across the highway from the academy and interact with faculty and students. Cadets often invite evangelical leaders to Bible study programs on campus, while the New Life Church deploys vans to transport between 100 and 200 cadets who attend Friday night services there, according to pastor Aaron Stern. Students are encouraged to pass out fliers and to recruit their friends to come, he said.
The academy’s leaders extend that kind of proactive approach to proselytizing cadets, according to MeLinda Morton, 48, the Lutheran chaplain allegedly pushed out of her executive position as a captain at the academy after another critical report, conducted with a Yale Divinity School professor, was released last month. “In their training and their practice [they] find it very hard to reach across the denomination line and appropriately minister to people who come to them from a nonevangelical perspective,” she said.
Jewish leaders have reacted strongly to the recent allegations. Last week, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman called on the Pentagon to freeze its recommended promotion of Weida, as reported in The Jewish Week, while the American Jewish Committee called for an independent congressional investigation.
Morton also said she has little faith in the Air Force-appointed task force, which she criticized for not contacting her despite her crucial role in identifying signs of religious coercion on campus. She also reported a “significant” number of new grievances brought to her attention since the Americans United report was released last month.
The academy “doesn’t seem to be really interested in seeing what’s going on,” she said. “Even when I called them on a purely perfunctory matter, and asked did they need information from me, their answer was no.”
# # #
Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?
Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?
Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.
I would suggest you look up the history of slavery in the US. Almost all of the justifications were Bible-based (as well as the objections). Specifically, Leviticus 25:44-46 states that you may enslave "foreigners", though not your countrymen. Although Exodus 21:7 does give guidance on selling your daughter into slavery, so who knows. Surely you've heard of the "curse of Ham"? How about the mark of Cain? It was often argued that the only 'mark' that Cain could have that everyone could see at a distance was dark skin.
And of course, many good Christians have no problem with gay marriage. They argue that resistance to gay marriage is NOT a Christian belief.
But ok, if you want to use the criterion of what is "settled"? The issue of gay marriage in the military has been settled a long time ago, my friend. If this guy can't get with the program and obey orders from above, well, the military is not the place for him, is it? You don't get to pick and choose which orders to follow, no matter how strong your opinion is.
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?
Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.
I would suggest you look up the history of slavery in the US. Almost all of the justifications were Bible-based (as well as the objections). Specifically, Leviticus 25:44-46 states that you may enslave "foreigners", though not your countrymen. Although Exodus 21:7 does give guidance on selling your daughter into slavery, so who knows. Surely you've heard of the "curse of Ham"? How about the mark of Cain? It was often argued that the only 'mark' that Cain could have that everyone could see at a distance was dark skin.
And of course, many good Christians have no problem with gay marriage. They argue that resistance to gay marriage is NOT a Christian belief.
But ok, if you want to use the criterion of what is "settled"? The issue of gay marriage in the military has been settled a long time ago, my friend. If this guy can't get with the program and obey orders from above, well, the military is not the place for him, is it? You don't get to pick and choose which orders to follow, no matter how strong your opinion is.
Dear Rocker, if you wish to discuss slavery in America, please open a new thread and don't attempt to hijack this thread. The issue is abuse of first amendment rights against Christians especially in our military.
How many years did YOU spend in the military my friend? I spent nine years and it was overwhelmingly a great experience and it is where I became a Christian. You once again display a lack of understanding of what a military order is and isn't. The first order/oath we all take when entering the military is to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. In the Bill of Rights, the issue under discussion is the First Amendment which deals with freedom of speech and religious liberty.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Traditionally, there has not been any hindrance against the free exercise of religion in the US which included from our inception all denominations and creeds and religious preferences. None were established, all were treated equal. That is no longer the direction we are headed. An Islamic murderer is allowed his religious preferences even against military regulations but Christians are not any longer. This is an unequal application of religious regulations.
Homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible both in the OT and the NT. I derive my Christian beliefs. A Christian that states gay marriage opposition is not a "Christian" belief is not following what the Bible clearly teaches which once again you are in grave error.
Now orders in the military. It appears you are unaware that only lawful orders are to be obeyed in the military chain of command. Folks in the military are actually trained to NOT follow an unlawful military order. To order a soldier to accept and condone and support homosexual marriage when they believe that is in error, a soldier is not under obligation to abrogate their free practice of their religion. This is now unequally applied to Christians who for over 200 years were allowed and even encouraged by many superior officers to freely express their religious preferences. That is why we have protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Islamic chaplains who are part of the military officer corps. They play a key role in the battlefield.
Today, Christians are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus in public prayers and now a soldier is not even allowed to display his Bible. Many believe rightly that this is a violation of first amendment religious freedoms guaranteed in our constitution and Bill of rights.
That is the topic of discussion.
If you wish to discuss the errors of slavery, please open a new thread and I would be more than happy to point out the errors in ascribing OT admonitions to the nation of Israel and the so called "Christian" justification of slavery. That is simply not Biblical.
-
Last month, the New York Times published an article about how an American Sikh (Maj. Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi) won a special exception (in 2009) in the Army for his unshorn hair. You see, unshorn (uncut) hair is part of the Sikh religion.
And as the article states: "The Sikhs of northwestern India have for centuries cherished their rich military history. Wearing long beards and turbans into combat, they have battled Mughals in Punjab, Afghans near the Khyber Pass and Germans in the bloody trenches of the Somme."
It's a very interesting article that includes a bit of the history of the religion as well as the struggles for some Americans who want to serve in the U.S. Army while not giving up the basic symbols of their religion: a beard, knee-length hair and turban.
The article also states: "Until 1974, Sikhs were allowed to serve in the United States military with unshorn hair and beards. But in the 1980s, stricter rules regarding personal appearance were enacted. Sikhs on active duty at that time were allowed to keep their articles of faith, but future recruits were required to seek case-by-case exceptions. No one succeeded until Major Kalsi in 2009."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/taking-on-rules-so-other-sikhs-join-the-army.html?ref=usarmy&_r=0
8)
-
Zack, one of our doctors was Islamic and wanted to keep his beard back in 1995. That was not allowed and he had to shave. Today, the story as above, the Ft Hood murderer are allowed to keep their hair styles according to their religion and now Christians are told to stuff it and accept doctrines against our Christian belief.
That is unequal treatment and further it goes against our first amendment rights granted in the Bill of Rights.
-
Sorry you can't see the obvious discriminatory practices against Christians in today's military under Obama.
Why is this Obama's fault?
I was thinking about these discriminatory practices, and I wonder if perhaps the problem is that there is a perception that religion has crept into politics. I reckon that if one calls oneself an evangelical Christian, others will, rightly or wrongly, assume you have certain political beliefs. The "Religious Right" and the "Moral Majority" in the past may now color our view of "Christians". The political landscape is quite different than it was when you were in the military, Hemodoc. Just a thought. There must be some reason behind this "discrimination", but I'm not sure it has much to do with Obama himself. It's probably more a reflection of American society in general.
I don't see how the military forces anyone to condone homosexuality unless that is how you interpret allowing gays to join the military. Is that what you are saying?
-
As in a previous post, the pendulum swings over time, sometimes for a reason:
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=28993.msg464902#msg464902
Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force
-
Sorry, Zach, I had missed that.
-
As in a previous post, the pendulum swings over time, sometimes for a reason:
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=28993.msg464902#msg464902
Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force
Zach, sorry to disagree which is quite rare for us historically, but that so called scandal is nothing more than the start of the anti-Christian military policies. As noted, the Christian faith has traditionally been a solid part of the military, not only tolerated but openly embraced up until most recently. What a soldier does in their own time off duty has until recently been out of bounds for military regulations unless it has a direct impact on the mission at hand such as bars off limits etc where fights have been occurring.
In addition, denying first amendment rights is MUCH more than just a simple pendulum swing in political ideology. Even Clinton respected first amendment rights despite his often quite anti-Christian politics. The current commander in chief has a great disdain for the constitution which restricts his actions as he has complained quite a few times about the restrictions he faces. He has thumbed his nose at the constitution on a regular basis and on following laws that he doesn't like. That exceeds his constitutional authority.
When a pendulum "swing" engages in denying constitutional rights, then it has over stepped and now becomes outright oppression. This is in light of the liberalization of actions towards other faiths while at the same time denying traditionally held tolerance of Christianity. Yes, the pendulum has now swung so far that Christians are now being oppressed and punished for their religious beliefs in opposition to the first amendment right.
-
Sorry you can't see the obvious discriminatory practices against Christians in today's military under Obama.
Why is this Obama's fault?
I was thinking about these discriminatory practices, and I wonder if perhaps the problem is that there is a perception that religion has crept into politics. I reckon that if one calls oneself an evangelical Christian, others will, rightly or wrongly, assume you have certain political beliefs. The "Religious Right" and the "Moral Majority" in the past may now color our view of "Christians". The political landscape is quite different than it was when you were in the military, Hemodoc. Just a thought. There must be some reason behind this "discrimination", but I'm not sure it has much to do with Obama himself. It's probably more a reflection of American society in general.
I don't see how the military forces anyone to condone homosexuality unless that is how you interpret allowing gays to join the military. Is that what you are saying?
First, he is commander in chief and this is his watch. What occurs on his watch is his responsibility even though this man knows little about personal responsibility for his personal actions. Nothing is ever his fault but someone under him.
Second, you are quite wrong about the political atmosphere while I was in the Army. Clinton came into office and immediately began his "pink" Army stuff. He openly disdained the military even though he was commander in chief. Hillary was running a lot of stuff behind the scenes. In point of fact, politically, things are quite similar to the time I was in the Army.
Now, the "Moral Majority" issue. Moosemom, who stated that I support that charlatan who started this political entity. I would be more than happy to go over a very interesting Bible study on what the BIBLE states about Christians engaging in political actions as part of their church activity. Send me a pm and I will explain why this is NOT biblical even though many Christians have been deceived into this false belief. That is NOT what we are supposed to do as Christians, yet many deceivers have done just that in that last 40 years. In short, the GOP has used our numbers to help gain political power yet today they are embarrassed by their connection to us.
My take, good riddance to the GOP if Christianity is now an embarrassment to them. Jesus lived under a repressive Roman dictatorship that eventually also crucified Him. Yet, he wasted not a second or an ounce of energy in a political movement against the corrupt Roman empire or their Jewish puppet kings. Instead, He preached the gospel.
As many of us said in our churches, the "Moral Majority" isn't moral and isn't a majority. Jerry Falwell was an embarrassment to many of us who knew better. Have you ever heard of an "agent provocateur?" Not sure if Falwell was actually an agent provocateur, but his actions were just as damaging to Christianity and the polarization of America against born again Christians as if he had been one.
If you wish to know the biblical answers to these issues, send me a pm and I will most happily explain them to you.
Thank you,
Peter
-
As noted, the Christian faith has traditionally been a solid part of the military, not only tolerated but openly embraced up until most recently.
And you do not see this as a violation of church/state separation? Wasn't that discrimination of other faiths? or those without faith?
-
As noted, the Christian faith has traditionally been a solid part of the military, not only tolerated but openly embraced up until most recently.
And you do not see this as a violation of church/state separation? Wasn't that discrimination of other faiths? or those without faith?
Not at all. First of all, "separation of church and state" was started first by a baptist preacher who founded Rhode Island for religious liberty. They tolerated all faiths, so your concept of church and state lacks historical accuracy.
Have you wondered why there is a Roger Williams Lodge of B'nai B'rith? Why the oldest synagogue in America is in Rhode Island? Have you ever wondered why Rhode Island never had a witch trial? Or blasphemy trials? Nor hanged, whipped or jailed people because of religion? All the other colonies executed witches, but not Rhode Island. Most had blasphemy trials, but not Rhode Island. Nearly everywhere else in colonial America, people of faith were persecuted, but not in Rhode Island. Massachusetts hanged four Quakers, and Virginia imprisoned dozens of Baptists. Maryland, which was created as a haven for Roman Catholics, came to outlaw Catholic priests and forbade Roman Catholics from inheriting property. These things did not happen here because Roger Williams founded Providence to be a "shelter for those distressed of conscience." Rhode Island's freedom of religion prevented such religious laws and abuses.
http://www.providenceri.com/archives/375th-essays-roger-williams-champion-of-religious
So the entire separation of church and state as originally brought to the US by the Baptists is greatly misunderstood today and that is in part your error in your false accusation against my position. Just because the US military openly engaged in accepting Christianity, it likewise afforded those same protections to men of other faith who were provided their own chaplains based on those faiths. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
Today, all faiths are openly and really openly tolerated accept Christianity. Where does that fall in your view of the constitutional protection of the first amendment which is now being unequally applied against Christianity alone?
-
Hemodoc, I never claimed that you believed in the "Moral Majority" etc. I was just using it as an example of why many people who, even while being people of faith, are made uncomfortable by those who define themselves as Christians. It may well be a feeling based in a misperception, but often perception is everything. I think I really do understand your feeling of having been hijacked by politicians; I hope you don't think me presumptuous in saying that. Forgive me if I've made a false assumption.
It must be hard to be a military commander and try to be fair to everyone. In civilian life, everyone seems to be constantly outraged about someone else having something that they themselves believe they have lost, and I'd imagine the same holds true in the military which only adds to the stress of military life. My opinion means nothing, really, since I've never served, but I personally see faith and bible study for those who want it to be a comfort to those in the military. Or study of the Koran or the Torah. As long as all faiths and spiritual beliefs are respected.
-
Hemodoc, I never claimed that you believed in the "Moral Majority" etc. I was just using it as an example of why many people who, even while being people of faith, are made uncomfortable by those who define themselves as Christians. It may well be a feeling based in a misperception, but often perception is everything. I think I really do understand your feeling of having been hijacked by politicians; I hope you don't think me presumptuous in saying that. Forgive me if I've made a false assumption.
It must be hard to be a military commander and try to be fair to everyone. In civilian life, everyone seems to be constantly outraged about someone else having something that they themselves believe they have lost, and I'd imagine the same holds true in the military which only adds to the stress of military life. My opinion means nothing, really, since I've never served, but I personally see faith and bible study for those who want it to be a comfort to those in the military. Or study of the Koran or the Torah. As long as all faiths and spiritual beliefs are respected.
Then these Christians fail to under some of the basic precepts of Christianity which is not surprising given the great number of political deceivers engaging the Christian Right for our votes.
As far as treating equally as a military commander, I believe you are mistaken on how easy it is to apply the constitutional protections equally. I was promoted to the rank of Major which is a field grade officer along with LTC and Col. I had 12 docs I supervised, half of which were Mormon, one was Episcopalian, One was Catholic, One was Muslim, and two were Baptist among those that had a religious preference. We never had any religious issues other than the Muslim who wished to keep a beard. He appealed and the Commanding General said no. All soldiers were to adhere to military standards especially officers. Remember, the military at that time and a long time before was an all volunteer army.
So, Obama simply needs to enforce the constitution right to religious freedom guaranteed in our constitution and Bill of Rights. Quite easy as I know as military commander myself.
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?
Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.
Whoa! But slavery is condoned in the Bible. So how does that make it not a Christian belief? Are you cherry picking the Bible? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the word of the Christian God. So, is it only SOME of the Bible? Who decides which parts ARE Christian belief and which parts aren't?
I find Rocker's question quite apropro. You have poo-pooed it as something that has been "settled" by the military, but Rocker was pointing out a similar issue based on Christian belief, based on the most reliable Christian document, the Bible.
-
Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???
Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?
Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.
Whoa! But slavery is condoned in the Bible. So how does that make it not a Christian belief? Are you cherry picking the Bible? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the word of the Christian God. So, is it only SOME of the Bible? Who decides which parts ARE Christian belief and which parts aren't?
I find Rocker's question quite apropro. You have poo-pooed it as something that has been "settled" by the military, but Rocker was pointing out a similar issue based on Christian belief, based on the most reliable Christian document, the Bible.
If you wish to discuss the biblical errors folks made ascribing slavery to the Christians in the American south on another thread, go for it. But that has nothing to do with this thread and is a grave biblical error. In short, America is not the nation of Israel. We are under the admonishment of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Israel was the instrument of God's judgement against nations who put others into slavery, killed woman and children etc. The OT was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. When a nation that put others into slavery did not submit to God's laws and attacked the people of Israel, God judged that nation with the same policies that they had against the nations they conquered.
Here is a direct proof of that in the OT.
Judges 1:6 But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
7 And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.
Adoni-bezek understood quite well that he reaped what he had sown against his enemies. So, all OT verses attributing slavery to the American experience are taken out of context and applied only to God's judgement against other nations during the time that God brought Israel back to the land He gave them.
God created the heavens and the earth and all the people on the earth. The people of the earth turned their back on God and God started His walk again to redeem mankind from their own evil starting when he walked once again with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants that we call the Jews. Jesus is Jewish as were all of the 12 apostles.
So, if you wish to start a thread on the Bible and slavery, go for it. It is an interesting study, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, nor does it provide any basis for slavery in America, that was pure greed, evil and gross misconduct against the word of God. We can further discuss on another thread the Christian basis for the abolitionist movement in England and America and the "Great Awakening." Further, let's also review the history of a slave trader named John Newton who repented of this evil sin and became a Christian preacher and song writer whose song Amazing Grace played a large part in meetings during the civil rights movement. Yes, it is a very interesting topic, but once again, it has nothing to do with the infringement of first amendment rights in the US military today. If you wish to discuss it with Rocker, then lets give it due respect on its own thread.
-
Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2600565716001/christians-in-the-military-barred-from-expressing-faith/?intcmp=obnetwork
The military was once one of most vocal supporter of first amendment rights but today it is leading the bandwagon against Christians expressing their faith while a muslim extremist who killed over a dozen soldiers is allowed to grow a beard in expression of his religious faith.
I've just watched this video, and this young man suffers from a persecution complex, which is probably why he is on Huckabee. I'm sorry, but I just didn't believe him. Either he is lying or else he really has the wrong end of the stick OR he is purposefully misleading the audience in an effort to sell more of his books.
I would really like for you to show us specific military regulations that say that a soldier on Active Duty or who is a Reserve on Active Duty cannot wear his/her uniform to church. I tried to do a search on the topic, and the best/most recent info I came up with is this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120909200421AA6KT8N
I guess I could go to the Uniform Regulations Manual, but I have other things to do on a Friday night. Since you are more knowledgeable about military affairs, maybe you would have a better chance in sussing it all out. Let us know what you find out.
As for the Ft. Hood killer, what are they going to do, force him to shave? How would they do that? Who cares?
Anyway, have a good weekend. Have you moved permanently to Idaho by now? How's your wonderful granddaughter? Are you still getting to see her pretty often? I hope so!
-
Wow, in a short post, you have questioned the character of a decorated veteran to which I do take offense. He is a graduate of West Point. After his injury, he was the first and only officer to return to active duty that was blind. He went back and taught at West Point, then at another base and now is teaching students at Gonzaga University here in Spokane. There is no way a liar and man lacking character would have achieved what he did at West Point before and after his injury nor since in his other assignments. Dismissing this brave man's character WITHOUT any objective reason to do so is quite unkind Moosemom and totally without any merit.
Read his blog and you will see a man of extraordinary character and courage. Your dismissal of his views are not supported by any objective measure.
http://www.hopeunseen.com/blog
You likewise denigrated Mike Huckabee, a respected Governor and popular as well, a good Presidential candidate with solid support winning several primaries and is a well respected conservative talk show host. Sorry Moosemom, that is beneath you to dismiss this very respected people just because you disagree with their conservative views. I dare to say that both of these men have accomplished much more and earned the respect of more people than any of us here on IHD ever will in our lifetimes and deservedly so.
So you are going to state that a West Point wounded war hero is a liar? Sorry, you truly have lost me on that outrageous denunciation of this brave man.
-
Yes, I am definitely going to question the character of this decorated veteran, and I am also going to question the character of the ex-Governor turned talk show host.
I am not so naïve that I will unquestioningly believe that military decorations innoculate one from self-aggrandizing behavior.
This soldier stated unequivocably that an active duty officer was refused permission to wear his uniform to church. I believe this is an untruth, but if you can show me specific military regulations that support his claim, then please do.
I do not dismiss these people because of their political views. In fact, I am very much interested in views that I may not at first agree with. I am always willing to change my mind. I am not so egotistical to think that it is weakness to be open minded and to be swayed by an opposing opinion. What does make me lose all respect for people like this soldier and Mr. Huckabee is the fact that they are members of a strange population that promote seething resentment.
They themselves give a prime example of what I mean. They are outraged that the Fort Hood killer is growing a beard. All that is important to them...all that they see is this beard as a symbol of the expression of religious belief that they themselves perceive has been taken away from them. This is the resentment that they are fostering in order to hike ratings or to sell books. What they seem to be missing is the fact that this killer will never ever see the light of day again. They should be rejoicing, but instead they seethe with resentment because he is growing a stupid beard. I'm sorry, but these two men have their priorities seriously misplaced.
So yes, I most certainly denigrate both of these men for fostering resentment and ginning up feelings of "why do they get that and I don't" kind of persecution complex. A decorated veteran should know better, and so should a "respected" Governor who, frankly, was laughed out of the Presidential race at a very early stage. I am deeply disappointed in both men, and I question their motives. The fact that one is a decorated vet and the other was a governor surely does NOT mean that they can never act ungraciously. Being in the military, I have learned, does not make one morally superior by any stretch of the imagination.
A West Poingt wounded war hero can certainly be a liar just like anyone else can be. If he is not a liar, then he is distorting reality for his own gain. He may well be brave, but that doesn't mean he is immune from being a part of fostering this seething resentment that shows like Huckabee's seem to gobble up like it was honey.
I'm sure this soldier has earned the respect of many people, but after viewing the links to both the interview and to his blog (which is rather like navel-gazing), he has not earned mine. My dismissal of his views do not have to be supported by any objective measure if I don't need them to be. If you think this is beneath me, so be it. I'm OK with that.
I'd still like to see the specific regulations that prohibit an active duty solider from wearing his/her uniform in church. Show me he is not a liar.
-
Dear Moosemom, you have failed to understand the objections with about the Ft Hood beard issue. I am sure most folks who are Christian care less whether he has a beard or not. That is not the issue. The issue is the unequal application of religious expression in the military. I would suggest you look into this issue that has been building for several years.
Christian Chaplains often are not allowed to give Bibles to troops who want them, nor are they allowed to pray in the name of Jesus. Those restrictions are not given against Islamic chaplains for instance.
You have fabricated a complaint against two honorable men without any evidence against them to substantiate your claim. I will simply agree to disagree with your outrageous accusations against a decorated war hero who must still have the respect and admiration of some very important people he was associated with at West Point. Your allegations are completely the fabrication of your own imagination. Perhaps you should look for some proof of your statements. I suspect you will not find any. Obviously this is a man of very high character and integrity and a man who has sacrificed much for this nation and you have the gall to impeach him based on your own imagination. Nothing more I can say.
-
Hemodoc, please provide the military rules that prohibit an Active Duty soldier from wearing his/her uniform to church.
-
Hemodoc, please provide the military rules that prohibit an Active Duty soldier from wearing his/her uniform to church.
Dear Moosemom, no thanks. I have no issues with his veracity or his statements since they are consistent with many other military officers complaints in the last couple of years. If you feel this man is liar prove it. You are fabricating and imagining his word is not trustworthy with no evidence of that which you admit you don't have. That is called libel and slander.
-
I asked you a simple question three times believing that you, of all people, could provide links to the specific military regulation(s) which prohibit active duty military personnel from wearing their uniform to church. Yet you refuse to answer, which is an answer of sorts.
As for "proof", please click on the link I provided in which a proud mother of two young soldiers asked if it was OK for them to wear their uniforms to church. As you will note, the Uniform Regulations manual does not prohibit this at all.
If you have a need to believe this young man because it feeds into some persecution complex, feel free. I guess that soon we will be subjected to yet another cry about the War on Christmas.
He is a liar and wants to sell as many copies of his book as he can to others who feel "persecuted". Mr. Huckabee enables him.
They should both be vastly ashamed.
I am sorry if you feel disappointed. I know I do.
-
According to Wikipedia, if a military member is on active duty, or a reservist on active status, then, yes, they can wear their uniform to church. If retired or (other) there are restrictions.
-
Hemodoc, please provide the military rules that prohibit an Active Duty soldier from wearing his/her uniform to church.
Dear Moosemom, no thanks. I have no issues with his veracity or his statements since they are consistent with many other military officers complaints in the last couple of years. If you feel this man is liar prove it. You are fabricating and imagining his word is not trustworthy with no evidence of that which you admit you don't have. That is called libel and slander.
In other words, you believe this man because you want to, not because there is any proof. It is a common tactic to attack those who insist on evidence when there is none. It is damaging to your argument, Hemodoc. If there is no evidence for these claims, the correct response would be to adjust your thinking instead of attacking those who would like to see the evidence.
Another tactic when confronted with the uncomfortable truth is to simply say you are no longer interested in the argument. I have witnessed you do this in the past.
Jean, thank you for your input. While Wikipedia may not be the most reliable of resources, it is better than no citations.
-
Nope, this is an honorable and brave man filled duty and honor. Your criticisms are unfounded and offensive. But that is the way things go on IHD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-6837189/a-blind-army-officers-challenging-vision/
-
Is the issue not simply related to the fact that a member of the military is prohibited from wearing the uniform if he/she is presenting something to an audience whether that be in a church, in a mosque, in a mall or on a soapbox?
-
Nope, this is an honorable and brave man filled duty and honor. Your criticisms are unfounded and offensive. But that is the way things go on IHD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-6837189/a-blind-army-officers-challenging-vision/
Thank you for this link, Hemodoc, but this does not seem to address the issue at hand, which is this soldier's claim (and yours) that an active duty member of the military is prohibited from wearing his/her uniform to church.
Again, I am extremely disappointed that such a brave man, who has overcome many obstacles just as many of us here on IHD (of which you were so dismissive) have done, would resort to lying. But you know what? I'm going to be charitable and withdraw my accusation of "liar". That's a harsh indictment, and I don't have any proof that this lie originated with him. Instead, I will assert that he is perpetuating a lie, and why such an honorable man would do that is simply beyond me. The fact that he has a new book out, though, gives me a clue.
And you have perpetuated this lie, also, claiming that your First Amendment rights are "under attack". That's hyperbolic, and the "proof" you have provided has been shown as untrue. I've always thought you've at least tried to be honorable, and I know that anyone who advocates for dialysis patients while undergoing something as life-changing as home hemo is brave, so why an honorable and brave man like yourself would choose to engage is this form of political and hysterical Chinese Whispers is mystifying to me. But that is the way things go on IHD.
-
I guess I'm lost. I watched the CBS link about the man who got caught up in a car bomb and lost his sight. There was nothing about him wanting to wear his uniform to church. He should wear it if he wants to. My brother in law wore his whites when he got married ... in church.
Who is a liar?
My sight is not the best after my eye surgery July 29th so it is a struggle to read all this. 8)
-
Nope, this is an honorable and brave man filled duty and honor. Your criticisms are unfounded and offensive. But that is the way things go on IHD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-6837189/a-blind-army-officers-challenging-vision/
Thank you for this link, Hemodoc, but this does not seem to address the issue at hand, which is this soldier's claim (and yours) that an active duty member of the military is prohibited from wearing his/her uniform to church.
Again, I am extremely disappointed that such a brave man, who has overcome many obstacles just as many of us here on IHD (of which you were so dismissive) have done, would resort to lying. But you know what? I'm going to be charitable and withdraw my accusation of "liar". That's a harsh indictment, and I don't have any proof that this lie originated with him. Instead, I will assert that he is perpetuating a lie, and why such an honorable man would do that is simply beyond me. The fact that he has a new book out, though, gives me a clue.
And you have perpetuated this lie, also, claiming that your First Amendment rights are "under attack". That's hyperbolic, and the "proof" you have provided has been shown as untrue. I've always thought you've at least tried to be honorable, and I know that anyone who advocates for dialysis patients while undergoing something as life-changing as home hemo is brave, so why an honorable and brave man like yourself would choose to engage is this form of political and hysterical Chinese Whispers is mystifying to me. But that is the way things go on IHD.
Moosemom, your vain and unfounded accusations against this brave man are a great disappointment.
I have placed many examples including the last one of Christians getting unequal treatment. If you don't wish to accept the truth so be it.
-
The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.
http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/
California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/
The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.
-
The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.
http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/
California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/
The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.
Christians may believe anything they want, as can any other religious people. They may NOT force their beliefs on others by keeping them from marrying whomever they wish or receiving special treatent (non-profit status) for promoting those beliefs.
-
The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.
http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/
California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/
The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.
Christians may believe anything they want, as can any other religious people. They may NOT force their beliefs on others by keeping them from marrying whomever they wish or receiving special treatent (non-profit status) for promoting those beliefs.
You prove my point willowtreewren, the first amendment is under attack. We no longer have the religious freedom to believe as an individual will. You no longer allow my religious belief system. Thus, the first amendment no longer means we have religious liberty in this nation the way you and many others are interpreting it and in doing so you fail to see the dangers of the precedent.
If someone wishes to go get married, none of my business, I oppose it, but it is they that will stand before the God that they don't believe in one day. Good luck on that day.
As far as the non-profit status, taking tax supplements for giving to the church is NOT a biblical position although most Christians don't understand this important doctrinal aspect. I have advocated to my fellow church members for quite a while that the tax exempt status is a trap that they will use to destroy the churches through just this process of gay and lesbian rights. In fact, the Bible predicted both situations. Churches lining up with the political powers and the gays and lesbians rising up against the church. If you wish, I would be very happy to explain in a pm why that is so.
So, non-profit status, get rid of it as far as I am concerned. I don't utilize it myself anyway and it is indeed the trap that the churches will regret and I suspect quite soon. These other organizations are just a prelude to the one set of group that opposes the gay rights movement without any compromise. It has already happened in Canada and other developed nations. It is coming to the US as well and this is just the prelude.
-
The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.
http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/
"[The ordinance] would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability."
I assume you would have us believe that saying "I don't like Italians" is illegal in San Antonio right now.
California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/
How quickly we move from "believing in" to "denying services to". And tax-exempt status is favorable special treatment by the state. The state is simply saying it will no longer give favorable special treatment to organizations that actively discriminate. The Boy Scouts are free to continue to operate in the state. They aren't being banned. No one is doing anything to their first amendment rights.
The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.
And people have been pointing to this or that as proof that the end times are here for about....2000 years now. Well, actually about 1900, as The Revelation was written in about 95.
-
Rocker,
Yes, this is a society moving from a Judeo-Christian basis to one that seems quite compatible with folks that were in Sodom and Gomorrah. If that is the society you like, so be it, not my cup of tea and not one I would want for my kids or grandkids.
Now, the first amendment is a constitutional guarantee of the natural right to religious freedom. Are you telling me you now oppose religious freedom my friend? Do you also oppose the right to free speech that would also be harmed by the San Antonio provision. You cannot have it both ways. It is one thing to state that gays can marry in any given state, it is another thing to say you can't speak out in opposition to that based on your religious belief. It is still another thing to declare a religious belief an act of discrimination that bars someone from public office.
So, do you support free speech? Do you support religious freedom? Your response declares that you don't.
Lastly, if you wish to gain a true understanding of the book of Revelation, send me a pm. I would be more than happy to improve your knowledge of end times Bible prophecy issues. By the way, when I became a born again Christian in 1994, this was not an imminent consideration for churches, although Ted Kennedy pushed the ENDA bill since 1974 each and every year and was never passed before he died. It just got out of committee once again a bit over a month ago. Perhaps this is going to be the year Teddy gets his wishes on this.
Yet, back in 1994, I had many discussions with my new Christian friends how the government would use the gay rights agenda to take away the tax exempt status of churches and potentially in a retroactive manner which would financially cripple the churches and members alike. Churches will be the next target after precedents are established with the Boy Scouts and other such organizations. One of the biggest groups in opposition to to ENDA is schools who oppose transgender teachers. That is probably one of the reasons it has not had the support for passage yet. Now that was not 2000 years ago, that was 20 years ago when people would have laughed at that sort of "speculation" which really was not speculation at all. It is simply one of the many signs of end times prophecy.
An interesting play on the acronym ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination ACT) is to change it to the END Act. Yes, the damage to churches will indeed be just that, an end act against the free and open application of Christianity in public here in the US. I can't help but to believe that the acronym is more than just coincidence, but maybe it is just that a coincidence despite the fact it will be an end act for the first amendment for sure. At that point, Christians will have no recourse but to take church worship underground here in the US as it is in the many nations today already.
So, yes, I believe that this is one of many signs of the end times, "so shall it be as the days of Lot," which is a specific reference to the morals of Sodom and Gommorah as well as those people deliberately coming against Lot what acted as a judge in their land, and I believe that the San Antonio non-discrimination act will be repeated in many localities across this nation in the next few years. So, are you still going to mock the concept that the first amendment is under attack?
-
Do you also oppose the right to free speech that would also be harmed by the San Antonio provision.
Again, you make wild unsupported accusations, with nothing to back them up. If you can give a single example of someone being arrested for speech under the existing ordinance in San Antonio, you would have a point. But it doesn't prohibit speech.
Lastly, if you wish to gain a true understanding of the book of Revelation, send me a pm.
I've been reading real Biblical scholarship for years, so I'm not sure what you could add.
The Revelation is simple political polemic against an unpopular Roman emperor. For example, that's why there are so many references to seven - the author must remind you over and over and over that it's really Rome he's talking about. It's as if I wrote a story about a dumb cowboy president who bumbles around and eventually sets off a nuclear war. Alll of my contemporaries would know who and what I was talking about - but if my story survived for a few hundred years, it would start to sound pretty strange. Most early churches did not consider the book inspired or canonical.
-
Do you also oppose the right to free speech that would also be harmed by the San Antonio provision.
Again, you make wild unsupported accusations, with nothing to back them up. If you can give a single example of someone being arrested for speech under the existing ordinance in San Antonio, you would have a point. But it doesn't prohibit speech.
Lastly, if you wish to gain a true understanding of the book of Revelation, send me a pm.
I've been reading real Biblical scholarship for years, so I'm not sure what you could add.
The Revelation is simple political polemic against an unpopular Roman emperor. For example, that's why there are so many references to seven - the author must remind you over and over and over that it's really Rome he's talking about. It's as if I wrote a story about a dumb cowboy president who bumbles around and eventually sets off a nuclear war. Alll of my contemporaries would know who and what I was talking about - but if my story survived for a few hundred years, it would start to sound pretty strange. Most early churches did not consider the book inspired or canonical.
Ahhhh, you are a preterist. I completely support your right to believe what ever you wish to believe, but I for the life of me can't make out 70 A.D. and the fall of Jerusalem from the book of Revelation. I don't see the 200 million man army principally from China, when did the Euphrates river dry up? , when did they have 100 pound hailstones, and blood up to the horses bridle for 200 miles. Sorry, but I don't buy into preterism and it seems to require a fervent imagination to make that work in addition to ignoring so many prophecies already fulfilled and still to be fulfilled.
So, yes, I would love to have a discussion on preterism because it truly is beyond my limited intellect to fathom that interpretation of the book of Revelation. Perhaps on another thread if you are interested.
But, once again, you do have the right to believe whatever you wish to believe. That is a natural right protected by the first amendment. Although I disagree strongly with a preterist viewpoint on the Bible, I would defend your right to believe in such a thing.
Likewise, anyone who wishes to run for political office in San Antonio and openly opposes gay marriage based on a religious belief has the right to have that belief and speak openly about that and still run and hold political office. In addition, I don't believe you are putting this proposed law into the context of some recent SCOTUS decisions that support the first amendment freedoms that were supported by the liberal members of the court as well.
Perhaps the most important SCOTUS case pertaining to the San Antonio law is Snyder v. Phelps, otherwise known to folks as the Westboro Baptist Church Funeral case. WBC openly disparages gays and others in their signs. (BTW, WBC is not a gospel preaching church at all and they are not Baptists at all) SCOTUS decided 8-1 that WBC had the right to openly protest and state whatever they wanted based on first amendment protections including openly disparaging gays and lesbians among others. So at present, despite many attempting to attack the first amendment rights such as those in San Antonio pushing for this new law, SCOTUS to date has taken a strong position on first amendment rights even for reprehensible folks like WBC.
I don't believe that gay rights should be a protected entity unto it's own no more than should preterists have special protections as a "civil right." Both are already protected by the first amendment. If folks in individual states wish to vote for gay marriage, that is their right under the 10th amendment. Making gay and lesbian rights into a civil right unto its placing own and that placed squarely in opposition to first amendment religious protections presents a legal entanglement that will lead to a direct confrontation over limits to the first amendment right of religious liberty and I believe that there are many that want that confrontation. Where that will settle out in the legal world is hard to predict. Where the Bible states it will settle on the other hand is quite open, "So shall it be as the days of Lot." Miley Cyrus gave us a look at that world outlook a few days ago.
-
Ahhhh, you are a preterist.
No, it's a far simpler concept than preterism. It's fiction. Political propaganda. Mockery. It has been a favored tool of political oppositions from the dawn of time, and it is trivial to find hundreds of contemporary examples. You create a caricature of your political opponent as purest evil. You give that caricature specific similarities to a particular person, so that everyone will recognize him/her. Then you write some long, usually tedious screed putting that person in ludicrously evil situations.
Likewise, anyone who wishes to run for political office in San Antonio and openly opposes gay marriage based on a religious belief has the right to have that belief and speak openly about that and still run
I've asked you repeatedly to show where anyone has been prohibited from running for public office in San Antonio based on statements they have made. You have provided no such examples. Because it's not in the law. Nothing is currently preventing anyone from running for office and spewing any foul garbage they wish.
and hold political office.
No. No one has the right to hold political office, only the right to run. It's a strange sort of entitlement to say someone has the right to hold office.
Your statements about the law are simply false.
Here is an example of the affected San Antonio code:
It shall be unlawful for any person, or any employee or agent thereof within the city, to discriminate against, withhold from or deny any person, because of race, color, religion, sex, age or handicap, any of the advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public by a place of public accommodation.
I don't see "saying out loud" or "running for public office" anywhere in the code.
-
No, it's a far simpler concept than preterism. It's fiction. Political propaganda. Mockery. It has been a favored tool of political oppositions from the dawn of time, and it is trivial to find hundreds of contemporary examples. You create a caricature of your political opponent as purest evil. You give that caricature specific similarities to a particular person, so that everyone will recognize him/her. Then you write some long, usually tedious screed putting that person in ludicrously evil situations.
Well, if you believe that the book of Revelation is fiction, then I could indeed show you otherwise, but if you wish to believe it is fiction, so be it but that is not true at all. If ever interested, I would be more than happy to show you that it is not at all fiction my friend.
Now, not sure what political opponent you allege I create a pure evil caricature. If you want to discuss politics, have at it. If you wish to put words in my mouth I have not spoken, not much to debate in that case.
-
I've asked you repeatedly to show where anyone has been prohibited from running for public office in San Antonio based on statements they have made. You have provided no such examples. Because it's not in the law. Nothing is currently preventing anyone from running for office and spewing any foul garbage they wish.
It is not the current law that is at issue my friend, but instead the PROPOSED law with the provisions for gay rights featured as a civil right. So, please tell me how to provide an example of someone prevented from running for office from a law that is not a law as of yet. Let's go back to the start:
The ordinance would prevent people who have demonstrated bias toward lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals from serving in city positions and prohibit the city from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would also prevent local business owners from discriminating against LGBT individuals.
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/26/san-antonio-divided-over-proposed-lgbt-non-discrim/
So, back to the subject at hand. Should San Antonio include a gay rights provision and prohibit people from serving in city positions if they "discriminate" against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. What they are calling discrimination is nothing more than religious belief that the gay lifestyle is a sin.
Sorry, but if you believe the book of Revelation is fiction and political satire, I certainly could provide a lot of evidence to the contrary. You have every right to believe that even though I disagree with you. I believe the Bible is the true literal word of God and have plenty of evidence to back up that claim.
If folks in any given state wish to pass a law granting the "right" to marry same sex partners, I don't agree with that, but that is the right of the people of the state to vote that into law.
Now, the problem with the San Antonio law as proposed is it infringes on religious freedom and free speech if it should pass. That is not surprising given that Castro is the Mayor of the city and he was heavily involved in the last Democratic convention where they had a great deal of trouble putting God and Jerusalem back into their platform if you remember that debacle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJE9YfsbNQ
So it is not really surprising to me that San Antonio is where this is happening given the political ambitions of its mayor. The LA mayor was embarrassed that putting God and Jerusalem was booed at the convention. Quite a testimony of where this nation is headed.
-
It is not the current law that is at issue my friend
It is exactly the current law that is at issue. All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.
Your statements about the proposal are simply false.
-
It is not the current law that is at issue my friend
It is exactly the current law that is at issue. All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.
Your statements about the proposal are simply false.
Oh boy, you are way off base. It is the sexual orientation, gender identity that is at issue in the PROPOSED changes to the law that is at issue as the news article above denotes. Oh well, I guess no sense debating this any longer.
Have a great day my friend.
-
I have been reading this unending conversation. All I can say is your rights end where my rights begain.
-
I have been reading this unending conversation. All I can say is your rights end where my rights begain.
Is that really what the first amendment is all about? Gay marriage can be voted in under the 10th amendment as a states right although I would not vote for it myself. That should in no manner infringe first amendment freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Yet, that is where this entire issue is going to place limits on the first amendment. This is not occurring in isolation as Canada, Sweden and several other countries have already declared the Bible hate speech. Is that really where we wish to go?
-
I do not wish to, nor will I debate this but Canada has NOT declared the Bible hate speech. The recent ruling was far more nuanced and subtle and referenced vilifying comments that quoted a respected source, The Bible, in such a way as to incite hatred. It is one thing to quote biblical text of any kind it is quite another to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
:canadaflag;
-
I do not wish to, nor will I debate this but Canada has NOT declared the Bible hate speech. The recent ruling was far more nuanced and subtle and referenced vilifying comments that quoted a respected source, The Bible, in such a way as to incite hatred. It is one thing to quote biblical text of any kind it is quite another to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
:canadaflag;
Monrein, sorry to take issue with your statement, but the issue of the Bible as hate speech actually is a real issue in Canada which includes a recent Supreme court ruling on this very issue a few months ago
It began in 2003 when an openly gay member of Parliament introduced a bill that passed declaring the Bible hate speech with severe penalties attached.
The bill, passed 141-110, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
\“It’s been a good week for equality in Canada,” said the bill’s sponsor, Svend Robinson, an openly homosexual member of Parliament.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20862/#TR8jcyiCSJz7jC31.99
However, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Wednesday that oftentimes, it is impossible to say that one loves the sinner and hates the sin. It asserted that the hatred of the act was inseparable from hating the person or person group.
“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the court outlined. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”
While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.
A number of incidents have made headlines in recent years where American businesses have been punished for their refusal to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle, such as the story of a photographer in New Mexico that was forced to pay $700 in fines for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment service, to the Vermont bed and breakfast owners who settled a lawsuit with two lesbians who were told by an employee that they could not hold their commitment service on the property. A Kentucky t-shirt screening company was also recently punished for declining to complete a work order involving t-shirts that were to be worn at a local homosexual pride parade.
http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/
Canadian Supreme Court Ruling Has Implications for Christian Witness
The Story: On Wednesday, Canada's Supreme Court upheld a ban on "hate speech" contested by a Christian activist, ruling that the country's hate speech ban "is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/06/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness/
The third reference above spells out the outcome of creating a separate civil right based on gender identity or sexual preference and its negative impact on religious freedom. Other nations have similar laws already.
-
As I understand it, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the portions of the Bible that violate Canadian Civil Rights laws, are hate speech. Specifically, discrimination against homosexuals is a violation of the law regardless of what the Bible says or instructs people to do.
I spent almost one or two minutes reading the about the decision.
gl
-
The last I heard was the military (Pentagon) wants all personnel to wear class A uniforms to all public events, which would include religious services. Every funeral you see involving the military has class A uniform requirements. Fatigue uniforms are for all other activities, such as war.
No one could get away with imposing some dress code law on military personnel.
-
The last I heard was the military (Pentagon) wants all personnel to wear class A uniforms to all public events, which would include religious services. Every funeral you see involving the military has class A uniform requirements. Fatigue uniforms are for all other activities, such as war.
No one could get away with imposing some dress code law on military personnel.
Gerald, I hope you are doing well.
The officer in question on the Huckabee show stated it was a written memorandum all were required to sign.
-
It is not the current law that is at issue my friend
It is exactly the current law that is at issue. All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.
Your statements about the proposal are simply false.
Oh boy, you are way off base. It is the sexual orientation, gender identity that is at issue in the PROPOSED changes to the law that is at issue as the news article above denotes.
And here I must apologize. For some time, I had been assuming that you had sought out information on this situation. Now I realize that your only source was the single article. That appears to be the origin of your misunderstanding.
From http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Nonbias-ordinance-draws-long-and-loud-argument-4767721.php
" the proposal would bring together [existing] nondiscrimination clauses into a single chapter. It would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability."
[..]
"It does not to attempt to legalize same-sex marriage or require businesses to provide same-sex benefits. It does not require separate bathroom facilities or monitor use. It does not regulate speech, religion or political activity."
-
The officer in question on the Huckabee show stated it was a written memorandum all were required to sign.
So we go back to what Moosemom stated earlier: that without evidence other than this man's word, one must wonder about his motives in sharing this.
Evidence refuting his statement has been offered by others in this thread. Where is the evidence that what he said is true?
-
The officer in question on the Huckabee show stated it was a written memorandum all were required to sign.
So we go back to what Moosemom stated earlier: that without evidence other than this man's word, one must wonder about his motives in sharing this.
Evidence refuting his statement has been offered by others in this thread. Where is the evidence that what he said is true?
Sorry, to refute his statement, you have to prove that they did not get this order. All that has been stated is in past times and from manuals. Yet, this is a man who so moved his superior officers by virtue of his character and resolve to keep him on as the first blind active duty officer. To date, no one has offered a shred of evidence that what he stated is false. The accusations against this brave man are vile and unfounded.
-
It is not the current law that is at issue my friend
It is exactly the current law that is at issue. All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.
Your statements about the proposal are simply false.
Oh boy, you are way off base. It is the sexual orientation, gender identity that is at issue in the PROPOSED changes to the law that is at issue as the news article above denotes.
And here I must apologize. For some time, I had been assuming that you had sought out information on this situation. Now I realize that your only source was the single article. That appears to be the origin of your misunderstanding.
From http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Nonbias-ordinance-draws-long-and-loud-argument-4767721.php
" the proposal would bring together [existing] nondiscrimination clauses into a single chapter. It would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability."
[..]
"It does not to attempt to legalize same-sex marriage or require businesses to provide same-sex benefits. It does not require separate bathroom facilities or monitor use. It does not regulate speech, religion or political activity."
Balderdash. I have read several articles on this issue and listed more than one. The entire issue revolves around adding the sexual orientation and gender identity. Yes, you should apologize since this has been the thrust of the entire discussion which you overlooked.
-
Balderdash. I have read several articles on this issue and listed more than one. The entire issue revolves around adding the sexual orientation and gender identity. Yes, you should apologize since this has been the thrust of the entire discussion which you overlooked.
Yes, I stated this repeatedly, and you kept insisting there was some "new law". There is not. And the existing law does not do any of the things you claimed it did, such as preventing someone from running for office if they hate gay people.
-
First of all, I am still waiting for YOUR definition of socialism.
Secondly, where have you seen any news report that states that this law is already in place? Sorry, but you are gravely mistaken and don't even realize it my friend. It is a proposed ordinance, not one in place at this time.
San Antonio Proposed Ordinance Bans Christians from City Government
by Bethany Monk
San Antonio City officials will discuss a proposed ordinance on Wednesday that state leaders say would severely threaten religious freedom. It could also a dangerous precedent for other cities throughout the country.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/08/27/san-antonio-proposed-ordinance-a-threat-to-christians/
Critics claim that a controversial proposal in San Antonio could be the first step in banning Christian conservatives from holding public office. The city council has proposed an ordinance that disqualifies anyone who has ever “demonstrated a bias against a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” The ordinance appears to include people who’ve spoken out about topics like gay marriage.
Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/27/san-antonio-proposal-first-step-banning-christians-holding-office#ixzz2db1usMr4
-
Oregon anti-discrimination law and gay and lesbian protests shut down a Christian business in Oregon that declined to participate in a gay wedding and bake a cake. Even though the state has a religious exemption, it does not apply to private businesses. Just as in Europe, gay rights trumps religious freedom.
GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and became the subject of a state investigation has closed. . .
At question is whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Oregon law doesn’t allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation. There is an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but private businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, age, veteran status, disability or religion.
The complaint will be investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and is required to be completed within one year.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-wedding-cake-same-sex-Sweet-cakes-by-melissa-222006201.html
-
Should San Antonio include a gay rights provision and prohibit people from serving in city positions if they "discriminate" against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. What they are calling discrimination is nothing more than religious belief that the gay lifestyle is a sin.
In short, yes.
In this country, we are guaranteed religious freedom. If one believes that the gay lifestyle is a sin, one has the freedom to believe that. However, one is NOT guaranteed the freedom to have one's religious beliefs imposed on anyone else, and people who serve in local government are in positions that can indeed impose their religious beliefs on other citizens through laws they may pass. It would be like having a member of the KKK serving as mayor. Do you think such a person would be a fair-minded mayor of ALL citizens, even the non-white ones? I don't think so.
By the way, the Bible says nothing about transgender people or sexual reassignment. There is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
-
Oregon anti-discrimination law and gay and lesbian protests shut down a Christian business in Oregon that declined to participate in a gay wedding and bake a cake. Even though the state has a religious exemption, it does not apply to private businesses. Just as in Europe, gay rights trumps religious freedom.
GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and became the subject of a state investigation has closed. . .
At question is whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Oregon law doesn’t allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation. There is an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but private businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, age, veteran status, disability or religion.
The complaint will be investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and is required to be completed within one year.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-wedding-cake-same-sex-Sweet-cakes-by-melissa-222006201.html
I understand the spirit of this particular state law, but I think it is wrong. While I oppose discrimination based on any of the above criteria, I believe that privately owned businesses should be allowed to conduct their business as they like. People are free to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a shop's admittedly discriminatory practices. Sweet Cakes openly admitted to discrimination based on their religious beliefs, and their bottom line would ultimately reflect that.
But Sweet Cakes isn't dictating policy, so their discrimination is more of an irritant that a real hindrance to people who are looking to city/local government for service and policy. And THAT's why I agree with what San Antonio is proposing.
-
In short, yes.
In this country, we are guaranteed religious freedom. If one believes that the gay lifestyle is a sin, one has the freedom to believe that. However, one is NOT guaranteed the freedom to have one's religious beliefs imposed on anyone else, and people who serve in local government are in positions that can indeed impose their religious beliefs on other citizens through laws they may pass. It would be like having a member of the KKK serving as mayor. Do you think such a person would be a fair-minded mayor of ALL citizens, even the non-white ones? I don't think so.
By the way, the Bible says nothing about transgender people or sexual reassignment. There is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
Well then if gay rights trumps religious beliefs, then you once again assert that the first amendment religious liberty rights is under attack let alone the right to say and speak as your conscious permits under the other half of the first amendment.
-
Oregon anti-discrimination law and gay and lesbian protests shut down a Christian business in Oregon that declined to participate in a gay wedding and bake a cake. Even though the state has a religious exemption, it does not apply to private businesses. Just as in Europe, gay rights trumps religious freedom.
GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and became the subject of a state investigation has closed. . .
At question is whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Oregon law doesn’t allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation. There is an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but private businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, age, veteran status, disability or religion.
The complaint will be investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and is required to be completed within one year.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-wedding-cake-same-sex-Sweet-cakes-by-melissa-222006201.html
I understand the spirit of this particular state law, but I think it is wrong. While I oppose discrimination based on any of the above criteria, I believe that privately owned businesses should be allowed to conduct their business as they like. People are free to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a shop's admittedly discriminatory practices. Sweet Cakes openly admitted to discrimination based on their religious beliefs, and their bottom line would ultimately reflect that.
But Sweet Cakes isn't dictating policy, so their discrimination is more of an irritant that a real hindrance to people who are looking to city/local government for service and policy. And THAT's why I agree with what San Antonio is proposing.
Religious belief is an irritant? Well, yes, that is probably true and has been for Christians for nearly 2000 years.
No, Sweet Cakes in not dictating policy, but the policies of today infringe on their religious beliefs.
Should Colorado lock up a man and his wife who likewise refuse to participate in a gay civil union by baking a cake as well?
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/09/baker-faces-jail-time-for-refu
-
Well, yes, to this particular same-sex couple, the Sweet Cakes owners' religious beliefs ARE an irritant, don't you think? They're so irritated that they made an official complaint.
The policies of today are not infringing on their religious beliefs. The policies might be infringing on their BUSINESS practice, but I don't see anywhere that they are not being allowed to believe as they wish.
No, I don't think Colorado should lock up a man and his wife for refusing to bake a cake for a civil union ceremony, but I would hope that the same-sex couple involved would voice their displeasure and make sure that everyone knows of this couple's discriminatory practices. Let the paying customers then decide for themselves whether or not this bakery deserves their business. But again, this couple can believe whatever they wish, but once they begin imposing their beliefs on others in any way, even if it is just in refusing to bake a cake, they should expect those who do not agree with them to make their voices heard, too.
And I would hope that none of these bakers would ever think of running for any kind of public office. If you refuse to bake a cake for a same sex couple, then you can't be trusted to make public policy that works for everyone.
Have you ever personally been discriminated against because of your religious beliefs? You just seem so angry and indignant all the time, and I'm trying to figure out where this is coming from. The word "attack" seems to appear in so many of your posts. I hope it is indicative only of your online persona and not of your real life!
-
What if a bakery didn't want to bake a cake for the KKK on Adolph Hitler's birthday? Should you be allowed to choose who you will do business or not?
What if a bakery doesn't want to bake a cake for an openly anti-American Al Quaeda terrorist celebrating 911?
What if a Jewish baker doesn't want to make a cake for black muslims celebrating Ramadan?
Should you have the right to choose who you will or won't do business?
Who is imposing their beliefs? The bakers who don't support gay marriage, or those that are forcing this business to accept baking a cake for gay marriage putting their religious beliefs into conflict? Just who is imposing their will Moosemom. It seems to me threatening to lock up someone who opposes gay marriage and doesn't want to participate is an act of severe state sanctioned coercion taken against a person exercising their constitutional right to religious freedom and belief. Once again, where does the first amendment fit into this?
Should parents have no right to opt out of issues in public schools that infringe their religious beliefs?
Sorry, but just who is imposing their outlook on who?
-
Hemodoc, gosh, are you so eager to be indignant that you've lost the ability to see when someone is agreeing with you?
I have said that I think anyone should be able to choose what they do with their privately owned business. As far as I am concerned, not that any state legislator has asked me, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple who is getting married or a Klansman who wants to celebrate Hitler's birthday, that's fine by me. I am pointing out, however, that potential customers have the right to go elsewhere with their business if they so choose.
I'm curious, though. Why do homosexuality and same-sex marriage seem to define "religious beliefs"? (Whenever I hear people speaking about their "religious beliefs", it's always about sexual matters. Why is that?) Would these businesses make cakes for, say, an adulterer? How about someone who does not honor his father or his mother? Would these people bake cakes for any convicted criminals? Thieves? How about atheists? Do atheists get cakes? We've all sinned. I'm glad I don't like cake. Do you like cake? Do you deserve a cake, Hemodoc?
If parents want to opt out of issues in schools that infringe upon their religious beliefs, then that's fine by me.
But you ask a very good question. Who is imposing their outlook on who? Perhaps you can ask the Governor of North Carolina the same thing. There are many people in America who feel that "Christians" are imposing upon their own religious beliefs...or non-beliefs.
-
I find it interesting that when I first heard this story about the bakers and even now, I can find NOTHING about sending the couple to jail. That is a smoke screen. Their shop closed because of the outrage from the gay community which rallied against the owners and effectively eliminated enough business for them to keep their shop open. Isn't this part of freedom of speech? In fact, isn't it capitalism working just as it is supposed to work? The owners of Sweet Cakes made a business decision to discriminate and that decision had a huge impact on their business.
Because there was a complaint against them they ARE under investigation.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/03/bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding
Aleta
-
Well, many interpret the first amendment as the Freedom FROM Religion instead of the correct freedom of religion. Many people believe that Christians are looking for a theocracy. Well, in the end we are when Jesus comes and rules here on earth. But as far as a theocracy headed by man, no, that is not at all the goal of Christianity.
However, it is interesting the dichotomy especially in Europe of how Christians and Muslims are beginning to be treated. On one hand, Christians more and more cannot exercise their faith when it comes to matters such as the Bible as hate speech, and honoring their own conscience when it comes to the gay rights issues.
On the other hand, England now has allowed aspects of Sharia law and taken tolerance of Islamic views to a very surprising level. For instance, a shop owner cooking pork and bacon had turn off her fan because Muslims complained about the smell infringing their religious liberties.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322435/Cafe-owner-ordered-remove-extractor-fan-case-smell-frying-bacon-offends-passing-Muslims.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447
-
I find it interesting that when I first heard this story about the bakers and even now, I can find NOTHING about sending the couple to jail. That is a smoke screen. Their shop closed because of the outrage from the gay community which rallied against the owners and effectively eliminated enough business for them to keep their shop open. Isn't this part of freedom of speech? In fact, isn't it capitalism working just as it is supposed to work? The owners of Sweet Cakes made a business decision to discriminate and that decision had a huge impact on their business.
Because there was a complaint against them they ARE under investigation.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/03/bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding
Aleta
Two different cases, one in Oregon, the other in Colorado.
-
Who is imposing their beliefs? The bakers who don't support gay marriage, or those that are forcing this business to accept baking a cake for gay marriage putting their religious beliefs into conflict?
I guarantee you that each and every person who walks into that shop has committed a sin in the Christian religion. What gives these bakers the right to sit in judgement of only selected sins?
Should parents have no right to opt out of issues in public schools that infringe their religious beliefs?
Of course all parents have the right to homeschool their children. Is there somewhere this is prohibited?
-
Hemodoc, as you know, I lived in the UK for a long time, so I'm not going to fall into the trap of discussing how the Muslim community is treated/discriminated against/favored. The sociological history of Muslims in the UK and continental Europe is very different from that in the US. Besides, I'm sure you don't really care all that much about European affairs.
So getting back to who deserves cake, I have some questions about Sweet Cakes and other businesses that adhere to "religious beliefs". So, they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Would they sell a birthday cake to a same-sex couple? I mean, if they're against same-sex marriage, I am assuming they are anti-gay in general, so does that mean they would sell NOTHING to gays? If that's the case, then why not just post a sign by the front door saying, "We Don't Serve Gays"?
What if a person comes into their shop and they suspect s/he is gay? What then?
-
Who is imposing their beliefs? The bakers who don't support gay marriage, or those that are forcing this business to accept baking a cake for gay marriage putting their religious beliefs into conflict?
I guarantee you that each and every person who walks into that shop has committed a sin in the Christian religion. What gives these bakers the right to sit in judgement of only selected sins?
Should parents have no right to opt out of issues in public schools that infringe their religious beliefs?
Of course all parents have the right to homeschool their children. Is there somewhere this is prohibited?
Rocker, not the issue. First of all, Christians understand greatly that we are ALL sinners. That is not the issue. They don't wish to participate in a gay marriage in any manner. Should they be forced otherwise?
Secondly, why yes, Germany prohibits home schooling apparently after the well publicized case just in the news recently. BTW, Obama opposes granting asylum to this family.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/29/US-Government-Seeks-To-Deport-Family-Threatened-in-Germany-For-Homeschooling
-
Would these businesses make cakes for, say, an adulterer? How about someone who does not honor his father or his mother? Would these people bake cakes for any convicted criminals? Thieves? How about atheists? Do atheists get cakes? We've all sinned. I'm glad I don't like cake. Do you like cake? Do you deserve a cake, Hemodoc?
I must say, as a PhD candidate, this is one the best arguments I've ever heard. :bow; Now, I'll leave this and let you guys carry on. I just had to give my praise!
-
Would these businesses make cakes for, say, an adulterer? How about someone who does not honor his father or his mother? Would these people bake cakes for any convicted criminals? Thieves? How about atheists? Do atheists get cakes? We've all sinned. I'm glad I don't like cake. Do you like cake? Do you deserve a cake, Hemodoc?
I must say, as a PhD candidate, this is one the best arguments I've ever heard. :bow; Now, I'll leave this and let you guys carry on. I just had to give my praise!
Well it is entertaining reading, but unfortunately Moosemom suffers from a quite vivid imagination and in such does not stick to the facts of the case very well. No one has made any of the accusations she is proposing against the bakers in with her questions above.
To say the least, the comment itself reflects a deficient understanding of what Christianity is or isn't. We have a saying in church, to get saved you first have to get lost. What that means is most folks think, I am "good" person, failing to understand we are all sinners. Understanding that all of us have a multitude of sins to answer to God is the fist step in understanding the gospel of Christ.The entire aspect of becoming born again is predicated on the need for a Saviour in the first place. So, what does the Bible say to all of those that follow Jesus:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
So the answer is yes, every day I am sure that they served adulterers, gays, or whatever sin you wish to name since EVERY man, woman and child who walked through their doors falls into those categories just like you and I as well.
Secondly, although Moosemom's argument is entertaining, it is not at all original. If you recall the Chick Fil A controversy last year, that was exactly the same argument used as well. However, when a whole lot of folks ventured that same argument against Chick Fil A, they came up against a stone wall of truth in that all of the allegations were false. It turns out they were not guilty of any of those false accusations at all. I would also remind folks of the overwhelming amount of support this company received as well. Is religious diversity and freedom really honored any longer in America? It seems like it is not.
So, I could respond to every one of Moosemom's myriad entertaining imaginations, but chasing rabbit tales becomes a unfruitful event. Sufficient to say, where have you seen any of those accusations documented against this couple whatsoever?
Simply because a couple does not want to participate directly in a gay marriage is quite different than the false treatise above. Should you be able to abide by your religious belief's in the land founded for religious freedom?
-
Hemodoc, I haven't made any accusations at all. Where do you get that idea? I'm asking questions, that's all. What accusations do you think I am making?
-
Hemodoc, I haven't made any accusations at all. Where do you get that idea? I'm asking questions, that's all. What accusations do you think I am making?
Moosemom, while quite entertaining, indeed, your questions are very provocative but accusatory questions made even more so by virtue of the fact that the questions themselves are devoid of any evidence to even bring them up.
Here is what the baker in question stated:
Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/#ixzz2dtRGFu4g
As a Christian who has repented of their own sins and asked forgiveness for them, it is completely evident that this man's religious beliefs led him to not participate in what he believes is a sinful act to the great detriment of his business and personal life. This man has paid a great price for living out his beliefs. So the answer to all of your accusatory questions above appears to be no.
-
I guess my real question is, if the owners of Sweet Cakes know that we are all sinners, why would they specifically target same-sex couples with their "religious beliefs"?
-
I guess my real question is, if the owners of Sweet Cakes know that we are all sinners, why would they specifically target same-sex couples with their "religious beliefs"?
That is not the issue. It is a matter of directly participating with willful knowledge.
Once again, with all due respect, I believe that you are asking the wrong question. Where have seen any evidence that they "targeted" the same sex couple in question? Sorry, but that is once again an accusatory question.
BTW, when did you stop beating your children?
-
Hemodoc, thanks for that link.
I am not pleased that you keep accusing ME of accusing THEM of anything, so please stop it, OK? They made a decision that, while costing them financially, seems to have been right for them personally, so I am happy for them.
It is unfortunate if it is true that threats were made against this business; I don't condone that. One can exercise their freedom of speech without resorting to threats on Facebook.
I know gay people who have paid a great price for living out their beliefs, too, so Sweet Cakes don't have a monopoly on that.
Did you ever figure out the whole wearing a military uniform to church thing?
-
I guess my real question is, if the owners of Sweet Cakes know that we are all sinners, why would they specifically target same-sex couples with their "religious beliefs"?
That is not the issue. It is a matter of directly participating with willful knowledge.
Once again, with all due respect, I believe that you are asking the wrong question. Where have seen any evidence that they "targeted" the same sex couple in question? Sorry, but that is once again an accusatory question.
BTW, when did you stop beating your children?
OK, I understand the concept of "directly participating with willful knowledge."
-
I've got a stonking great headache and am going to bed, so let me just sum up my beliefs on this subject so that there is no misunderstanding. I'm going to try to be as clear as possible.
I believe that private business should be able to conduct their enterprise as they see fit. Since they do not set public policy, if they want to pick and choose to whom they will sell their products, they should be free to do so. Most business won't serve you if you are not wearing a shirt and shoes.
If potential customers believe that these businesses are unfairly discriminating, then they have the right to peaceful protest and the right to not only take their business elsewhere but also to convince others to do the same.
Goodnight!
-
It is obvious that you did not read the report if you have to ask where the evidence is that they targeted the gay couple.
-
It is obvious that you did not read the report if you have to ask where the evidence is that they targeted the gay couple.
Sorry, it is likely the other way around. This is not the first case of Christian bakers declining to participate in a gay marriage. Target implies that the baker went after the gay couple. Read the report, they stated they have nothing against homosexuals, they simply do not want to participate in what they consider a sin. That is not targeting whatsoever. But the protests and accusations against these folks is a targeted effort for sure.
-
Hemodoc, did you ever find out whether or not the military prohibits active duty soldiers from wearing their uniforms to church?
Also, have you yourself ever had your right to religious freedom infringed upon? If so, what happened? Did you file a complaint?
-
Hemodoc, did you ever find out whether or not the military prohibits active duty soldiers from wearing their uniforms to church?
Also, have you yourself ever had your right to religious freedom infringed upon? If so, what happened? Did you file a complaint?
He already told us, MM. Allowing a guy on Death Row to grow a beard destroys his religious freedom.
Also, that they wouldn't allow him to homeschool if he lived in Germany.
-
Hemodoc, did you ever find out whether or not the military prohibits active duty soldiers from wearing their uniforms to church?
Also, have you yourself ever had your right to religious freedom infringed upon? If so, what happened? Did you file a complaint?
1) Maj Scott Smiley's testimony is not in question by me. He stated it was by memorandum which is a frequent way general orders are published.
2) Yes, I have as a matter of fact, but the Lord squared the issues away.
-
San Antonio churches fear a backlash from the new "anti-discrimination" bill proposed.
A coalition of some 500 ministers organized to defeat the proposal including a number of African-American and Hispanic pastors. Steve Branson, the pastor of Village Parkway Baptist Church, said his 1,500-member congregation is frightened about the future.
“Some of us will pay a price,” Branson told Fox News. “There will be somebody going after our Christian business people. They will try to make a few people examples.”
He said the idea that Christians could be penalized for opposing gay marriage could prompt a backlash.
“The city of San Antonio will react strongly,” he predicted. “There will be recalls. This law is going to be very punitive towards believers – especially businessmen and it will have some effect on churches.”
:2thumbsup;http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/critics-say-non-discrimination-law-would-target-christians.html
-
Did you read this article closely? There's a lot of might happens and could happens and we believes and such. Nothing definitive in this article at all. And did you see that this proposal is supposed to protect veterans, too? Just because someone yells that it's an "attack on religious freedom" doesn't mean that it is.
What is sinful about being transgender? What does the Bible say about gender identity?
BTW, this is just a proposal, so people have the chance to have their say and even have it amended before it goes to a vote.
What worries me is that the author of this article is the author of "Dispatches from Bitter America". I think that pretty much says it all. Bitter and twisted and trolling for reasons to find persecution everywhere.
-
Did you read this article closely? There's a lot of might happens and could happens and we believes and such. Nothing definitive in this article at all. And did you see that this proposal is supposed to protect veterans, too? Just because someone yells that it's an "attack on religious freedom" doesn't mean that it is.
What is sinful about being transgender? What does the Bible say about gender identity?
BTW, this is just a proposal, so people have the chance to have their say and even have it amended before it goes to a vote.
What worries me is that the author of this article is the author of "Dispatches from Bitter America". I think that pretty much says it all. Bitter and twisted and trolling for reasons to find persecution everywhere.
1) Dispatches from Bitter America is a reference to what Obama called them, bitter and clinging to guns and religion. Not sure why you don't understand the satire of his comment, but oh well, here is the explanation Moosemom IT IS SATIRE based on what Obama said about conservative, religious people!! How soon you forget.
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said.
2) Not trolling, simply commenting AND reporting on an ongoing news story. Your view is the only one that appears to be twisted.
3) Yes, I did read it. It is a proposed bill before the city council of San Antonio with some very serious potential consequences. Go look at my first post on this and I made it clear, it is a proposal. So, what is your beef Moosemom?
I have already shown how similar laws in Europe and Canada have resulted in Christian pastors fined or locked up for simply preaching the Word of God. It remains a very significant issue despite the fact you don't seem to grasp that reality. Mockery does not become you at all Moosemom.
4) Gender Identity: Glad to discuss this with you. But please start a new thread since this is not an issue of first amendment rights being infringed. Thank you
-
Ah, OK, thanks for explaining the satire. Yes, I had forgotten about Obama's comment, which was unfortunate but unfortunately true in the case of those who DO cling to guns and religion when their bitterness gets the better of them. I'm so sick of people who constantly whine about some perceived slight and couch their grievances in terms of "freedom of religion", like God gives them a pass for their hatred.
No, sorry, this is just not a significant issue for me. Since it is for you, I trust that you will spend your energy in supporting those who share your religious beliefs in refusing to bake cakes for gays. Good luck to you.
-
Ah, OK, thanks for explaining the satire. Yes, I had forgotten about Obama's comment, which was unfortunate but unfortunately true in the case of those who DO cling to guns and religion when their bitterness gets the better of them. I'm so sick of people who constantly whine about some perceived slight and couch their grievances in terms of "freedom of religion", like God gives them a pass for their hatred.
No, sorry, this is just not a significant issue for me. Since it is for you, I trust that you will spend your energy in supporting those who share your religious beliefs in refusing to bake cakes for gays. Good luck to you.
Once again, mockery does not become you Moosemom. These are legitimate issues and concerns. But in point of fact, we have known this was coming for quite some time. Sadly, it is God that is mocked, not me in all of this. You will have a chance to stand before Him some day. I pray you learn who He really is before that day.
It is further quite sad to see you agreeing with Obama on "bitter" Americans who cling to their guns and religion. That is a very sad statement for a presidential candidate who has now been elected twice since it describes a large majority of people in the US. But it does so in a mocking manner not understanding the joy that God grants His children. Keeping the right to believe as you wish is one of the basic requisites of freedom. Sadly, that is what is most threatened. Obama does not understand what made America a great nation as his actions have proven over and over again. In the end, he is the one that appears bitter against those that have a love of the God of the Bible and enjoy God given freedom.
-
I apologize for the mocking comment about baking cakes, or not, for gays, but you know I am not mocking you and your beliefs. I understand how important this issue is for you, and I am really sorry that you feel attacked. I know that you feel that God's Word can be heard in only one way, but I hope that you would not judge others, who may not share your beliefs, as "mocking God".
You seem bitter, Hemodoc, and you cling to your guns and to your religion. Having a gun is not illegal nor "wrong", and having deep religious beliefs is a protected freedom, and, more importantly, a source of comfort and guidance. But when you add bitterness and hatred into the mix, then yes, you can get a certain kind of person who lets fear and bitterness twist their hearts. I don't recall the last time I saw a kind word from you directed to any of the many IHD members who are sick and frightened. You know I've always admired your advocacy and your service to this nation, and with your strong religious beliefs, it seems to me that you could be of such comfort to this site's many new members. I see from you nothing of the joy that God grants His children. It is with a sense of horror that I have come to wonder if you are indeed one of those very people of which the President spoke. But I'm just repeating myself, so now I will back out of this discussion altogether. I have a chicken to bake (don't like cake, so I don't bake them).
Have a good evening, Hemodoc. Pick up your socks. If you don't, no amount of pray will save you. LOL!
-
I apologize for the mocking comment about baking cakes, or not, for gays, but you know I am not mocking you and your beliefs. I understand how important this issue is for you, and I am really sorry that you feel attacked. I know that you feel that God's Word can be heard in only one way, but I hope that you would not judge others, who may not share your beliefs, as "mocking God".
You seem bitter, Hemodoc, and you cling to your guns and to your religion. Having a gun is not illegal nor "wrong", and having deep religious beliefs is a protected freedom, and, more importantly, a source of comfort and guidance. But when you add bitterness and hatred into the mix, then yes, you can get a certain kind of person who lets fear and bitterness twist their hearts. I don't recall the last time I saw a kind word from you directed to any of the many IHD members who are sick and frightened. You know I've always admired your advocacy and your service to this nation, and with your strong religious beliefs, it seems to me that you could be of such comfort to this site's many new members. I see from you nothing of the joy that God grants His children. It is with a sense of horror that I have come to wonder if you are indeed one of those very people of which the President spoke. But I'm just repeating myself, so now I will back out of this discussion altogether. I have a chicken to bake (don't like cake, so I don't bake them).
Have a good evening, Hemodoc. Pick up your socks. If you don't, no amount of pray will save you. LOL!
Dear Moosemom,
I don't accept your diagnosis of being bitter. On the contrary, I enjoy my granddaughter more than you can believe and in many ways the last few years have been the best of my life.
If you interpret my sharp tongue against people who have expressed very "bitter" comments against me and my views, so be it. If you have not noticed, IHD is not at all a right wing conservative site so venturing into political discussions as a "right wing conservative" is always an interesting venture to say the least. And where do you get "hatred?" sorry, venturing conservative viewpoints is just that. Yes, I do have my advocacy on my own website and that is where I choose to do so at the time being. And in addition, you are quite wrong, I have commented in the last couple of weeks quite a bit, so once again, you are quite wrong.
In addition, I get PMs from folks all the time that you never see obviously. So, let's keep to the political issues at hand if you don't mind, thank you.
As far as this president, I have nothing but the greatest disdain for a man who has sought such havoc against the freedoms we enjoy that will have a lasting impact on my own grandkid. In any case, IHD is a very left wing site and many folks have spoken with quite sharp comments which is not a big deal but don't go reading too much into this limited site of discussion. It is not a right wing conservative friendly site at all. So be it.
-
You are right that this is not, in general, a right wing conservative friendly site, which is why I am always happy to see you posting. I'm glad you take the time and make the effort to offer opposing points of view, and I thank you for that.
I admit to often being concerned about your "bitterness", so I am particularly glad to hear that my "diagnosis" is incorrect. You know I love ya and want nothing but the best for you. I guess I just need the occasional reminder that you ARE happy. But since you wish to keep to the political issues at hand, I will no longer try to address you in a slightly more personal manner, which is kind of a shame. But I respect your privacy.
Good luck to you, and give your granddaughter a special giant hug the next time you see her! Bye!
-
Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.
In the interest of going back to the original point of this thread, the restriction on wearing his uniform was NOT for attending church, but for speaking in church.
Just as gay soldiers could not SPEAK at rallies or parades, but are allowed to wear their uniforms at these public events, even while participating.
Please don't find boogey men while there aren't any. This is like saying that you are not allowed to drive a car, while leaving out "while intoxicated."
-
Gay rights Trump Religious beliefs in a NM Supreme court decision that will force businesses to serve gay marriages even if they oppose it on religious grounds. Just as we have seen in Europe and Canada, gay rights is the "antidote" to Christianity's morals. This ruling will have a chilling effect on Christian businesses in NM that will have to choose between the truth of the Bible and the modern uniform imposition of "tolerance." What ever happened to being able to choose based on your conscience? I guess that is not allowed in this new "tolerant" America, that is unless you are a Christian. Just who is imposing their views on who?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nm-court-says-christian-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html
-
What is the logical difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage?
Would those of you saying everyone should be able to do business with only those people who match their values be as supportive of a pastor refusing to marrying a salt and pepper couple?
-
Gay rights Trump Religious beliefs in a NM Supreme court decision that will force businesses to serve gay marriages even if they oppose it on religious grounds. Just as we have seen in Europe and Canada, gay rights is the "antidote" to Christianity's morals. This ruling will have a chilling effect on Christian businesses in NM that will have to choose between the truth of the Bible and the modern uniform imposition of "tolerance." What ever happened to being able to choose based on your conscience? I guess that is not allowed in this new "tolerant" America, that is unless you are a Christian. Just who is imposing their views on who?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nm-court-says-christian-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html
I would say that HUMAN rights trump religious belief. And that would include ANY religious belief. When you cherry pick the Bible (or the Koran, or the Rig-veda, or whatever religious sacred text you prefer) to select the values that you want from it, and then claim that your religious rights are being trampled, it seems a bit insincere. Civilization has fortunately moved us out of the mind set of thousands of years ago.
Who gets to decide which of the many contradictory passages from the texts are to be followed? What makes one interpretation better than another. And if a supernatural being couldn't get the texts written in a way that anyone could simply understand through the ages without interpretation, that doesn't speak well for the "intelligence" of the author.
-
Gay rights Trump Religious beliefs in a NM Supreme court decision that will force businesses to serve gay marriages even if they oppose it on religious grounds. Just as we have seen in Europe and Canada, gay rights is the "antidote" to Christianity's morals. This ruling will have a chilling effect on Christian businesses in NM that will have to choose between the truth of the Bible and the modern uniform imposition of "tolerance." What ever happened to being able to choose based on your conscience? I guess that is not allowed in this new "tolerant" America, that is unless you are a Christian. Just who is imposing their views on who?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nm-court-says-christian-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html
I would say that HUMAN rights trump religious belief. And that would include ANY religious belief. When you cherry pick the Bible (or the Koran, or the Rig-veda, or whatever religious sacred text you prefer) to select the values that you want from it, and then claim that your religious rights are being trampled, it seems a bit insincere. Civilization has fortunately moved us out of the mind set of thousands of years ago.
Who gets to decide which of the many contradictory passages from the texts are to be followed? What makes one interpretation better than another. And if a supernatural being couldn't get the texts written in a way that anyone could simply understand through the ages without interpretation, that doesn't speak well for the "intelligence" of the author.
Great, questioning God's intelligence now. Well, that is what the Bible said would happen, here it is.
The problem is you so easily dismiss that God is real. He is. I hope you find out that truth here in this reality.
As far as "Human rights," well, one of the longstanding "human rights" has always been for the last 400 years in this nation, religious freedom. So sad to see how easily folks dismiss that essential human right bestowed upon us by our Creator as our founding documents state.
In any case, who stated I "cherry pick" the Bible? that is not true at all. I believe the Bible is the true, literal word of God. I believe that God created us. I believe that God defined marriage as between a man and a woman and any illicit sexual activities outside of that institution is a sin. The Bible is very clear on all of these issues and that is NOT a matter of interpretation as you state incorrectly. God's word is plain and clear. He is not at fault if folks do not understand His written word.
But indeed, the last election did tell us a lot. The interesting aspect is that we no longer are a center right nation. These so called "human rights" here in the US in the last few years have already been in place for quite some time in Canada and Europe where they have prosecuted pastors and other Christians for keeping to their beliefs. It is coming to the US and probably won't be long before every state, town and county goes the same way. Then, who is imposing their beliefs on who?
-
What is the logical difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage?
Would those of you saying everyone should be able to do business with only those people who match their values be as supportive of a pastor refusing to marrying a salt and pepper couple?
You are asking me that question? Well, let me ask my brown skinned wife what she thinks on that issue. Yes, I am in an "interracial marriage" as you say. The Bible states that we are all of one blood. Sorry, false question, the Bible does NOT teach that we cannot marry anyone we wish. Sorry, you are quite mistaken on that false analogy.
-
Hemodoc, I admire you very much for all of your statements. However, I do wish you would stop calling every one " my friend", as they clearly are not. The Bible however does state, very clearly, that " never the tribes should mix". That is why I oppose mixed marriages. Not for the adults, but for the children. I do not mean to offend you, but, so far, we re allowed to have our own beliefs. And if any body calls me a hater because of this statement, I will not be a happy person.
-
jean-just curious, what was the context of the 'never should tribes mix' statement? was this in the old testament?
also, what problems do you feel mixed children would have? do you know any 'mixed' couples?
-
Hemodoc, I admire you very much for all of your statements. However, I do wish you would stop calling every one " my friend", as they clearly are not. The Bible however does state, very clearly, that " never the tribes should mix". That is why I oppose mixed marriages. Not for the adults, but for the children. I do not mean to offend you, but, so far, we re allowed to have our own beliefs. And if any body calls me a hater because of this statement, I will not be a happy person.
The laws you are referencing for the children of Israel were to preserve the lands given to them by God. The Jewish tribes were not mix not because of race, but because of inheritance of the land. It had nothing to do with the races. Have you not read the following:
Numbers 12: AND Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
If you read the rest of the chapter, God sent leprosy to Miriam after stating this. It was the prayer of Moses that removed that disease. So if folks wish to believe that God is against this so called "interracial" marriage thing, then why did God punish Miriam and Aaron and elevate Moses. BTW, the last time I checked, the women of Ethiopia were black and Moses was a Jew. Read the story. God DID NOT condemn Moses, it was those making a false accusation against him in part for marrying a black woman that were punished by God Himself. Anyone that wishes to believe that the Bible condemns "interracial" marriage does not understand the Bible on this issue.
Sorry, no offense, but there is no condemnation from God for marrying a person of another so called "race." That is simply an error of understanding.
-
jean-just curious, what was the context of the 'never should tribes mix' statement? was this in the old testament?
also, what problems do you feel mixed children would have? do you know any 'mixed' couples?
Well, I am a "mixed" couple with my Asian wife. All three of our kids have black hair and brown skin. There are no problems with "mixed" marriages biblically or socially or medically. Wow. I can't believe we are actually discussing this as a real issue. Wow.
-
honestly, I can't believe it either. I was trying to give Jean an opportunity to substantiate her beliefs.
-
YES, as a matter of fact, I have more then a few people who are in "mixed" marriages .Please understand that I personally do not care who marries who whether it be a race issue or a sexual issue. But then, I did not write the bible. Do you seriously think that the mixed children don't have it thrown in their faces at school? They may not say much about it to anyone, but lets face it. Any child that is 1/10th mixed or is in any way different has been an outcast at one time or another. Most of the parents that I know who are in a mixed relationship admit that too. I hate to see children suffer for any reason. Same thing with gays and it hurts me terribly to see any one suffer in that manner. Guess I have to accept Hemodocs explanation. I am not a Bible scholar and he does a good job. And, oh, yes, I have read both the old and new testament very many times, but my memory just aint what it's used to be. But, I did remember reading that. Yay for me.
-
my nieces are biracial and go to school with a bunch of other kids that are black, white, hispanic, asian, and many that are also biracial. There are so many interracial marriages these days, that I really don't think that being mixed is a big deal anymore. perhaps it depends on where you live.
-
Perhaps it does.
-
What is the logical difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage?
Would those of you saying everyone should be able to do business with only those people who match their values be as supportive of a pastor refusing to marrying a salt and pepper couple?
You are asking me that question? Well, let me ask my brown skinned wife what she thinks on that issue. Yes, I am in an "interracial marriage" as you say. The Bible states that we are all of one blood. Sorry, false question, the Bible does NOT teach that we cannot marry anyone we wish. Sorry, you are quite mistaken on that false analogy.
There have been times in history where interracial marriage was so obviously wrong (by the cultural norms of the time) that many states had laws against it. These were overturned long before gay marriage became an issue. As recently as 20 years ago, gay marriage was so outside societal norms that few would have even considered it could happen.
There are distinct similarities between interracial and gay marriage from the perspective of both societal norms and legislation.
I understand that it is a "false analogy" for those who consider the Bible to be the true word of a supreme being. I am not one of those people, and our system of government does not grant Biblical dictum any standing.
-
Not apologizing, but, yes, I do believe in God and the Bible as he wrote it. It is unfortunate that so many people no longer believe in God, but other than live an exemplary life and talking when I can about Him, there is not a lot I can do about it. I love IHD, but the pattern of it has changed very subtly since I joined in 2008. Then, we all joined in on the fight against this nasty disease we all have or are connected to, to support others and share our knowledge. Now, if any one dares to make a statement there are 10 or more people ready to jump on them for any reason at all. I do believe it s called "bullying". Think about it next time you lay your fingers on your keyboard. Everyone has the right to enter any thread if they care to, even if they do not write prolific page lengths. But, you are all grown ups, so I am preaching to the choir.
-
What is the logical difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage?
Would those of you saying everyone should be able to do business with only those people who match their values be as supportive of a pastor refusing to marrying a salt and pepper couple?
You are asking me that question? Well, let me ask my brown skinned wife what she thinks on that issue. Yes, I am in an "interracial marriage" as you say. The Bible states that we are all of one blood. Sorry, false question, the Bible does NOT teach that we cannot marry anyone we wish. Sorry, you are quite mistaken on that false analogy.
There have been times in history where interracial marriage was so obviously wrong (by the cultural norms of the time) that many states had laws against it. These were overturned long before gay marriage became an issue. As recently as 20 years ago, gay marriage was so outside societal norms that few would have even considered it could happen.
There are distinct similarities between interracial and gay marriage from the perspective of both societal norms and legislation.
I understand that it is a "false analogy" for those who consider the Bible to be the true word of a supreme being. I am not one of those people, and our system of government does not grant Biblical dictum any standing.
Sorry my friend, but you are still wrong and fail to see why your example remains a false analogy. Supporting interracial marriage has never been a threat to first amendment religious freedom. It required no change to the definition of marriage which by the way was defined by God Himself. There is no biblical basis for opposition to your so called "interracial" marriage even though many who oppose Christianity often attempt to imply that the Bible opposed this when in fact, Moses himself married a black woman "from Ethiopia" and those who opposed Moses were the ones punished. Once again, you start your premise using a pastor to deny an interracial marriage which unduly prejudices the real biblical position on "interracial" marriage when in fact the Bible does not oppose this at all.
The anti-miscegenation laws began in the US in large part from slave states although it did spread to other states in the north and in the west as well. Yes, it took a Supreme Court ruling in 1967 to declare them unconstitutional but here is where any similarity ends between interracial marriage and gay marriage.
Banning the anti-miscegenation laws imposes no burden whatsoever on religious freedom. It does the opposite in fact.
Gay marriage on the other hand is placed in direct confrontation with religious freedom and as in Europe and Canada, the courts in our modern, secular humanist lands now trump religious freedom with gay rights. Thus it is more than just seeking constitutional freedoms for gays as a special civil right, it is a direct attack upon religious freedom in that it imposes a religious standard of secular humanism for the entire United States. Yes, secular humanism is in actuality a religious worldview and this is not just their detractors viewpoint, it is expressly described as such in the Humanist Manifestos as a "living and growing faith."
We, the undersigned, while not necessarily endorsing every detail of the above, pledge our general support to Humanist Manifesto II for the future of humankind. These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith. We invite others in all lands to join us in further developing and working for these goals.
http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
There is much more at hand than simply granting a new civil right to a specific group. In the hands of those who oppose a Christian worldview, it is a very powerful weapon. Even if you were to state that you are not a "humanist," it is clear that the Humanist Manifesto is indeed a blueprint for many of these issues at hand in the US today.
So, your analogy remains false on many levels my friend, but mainly because interracial marriage does not in any manner impose opposition to religious freedoms whatsoever. Gay marriage does. In doing so, they must first start by redefining the term marriage. What appears to be such a minor issue of what marriage is or isn't becomes a plethora of issues that is a direct attack on first amendment religious freedom as an intended or unintended consequence. In this battle, the religion of secular humanism trumps all other religious beliefs. If you don't believe secular humanism is a religion, read their documents. Religion is the underlying theme throughout the document and as they themselves admit, it is a "growing faith" and growing faith that is in complete opposition to "traditional theism." There is much more at hand my friend than meets the eye on a casual glance of the issues.
Humanist Manifesto II
Preface
As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.
-
Banning the anti-miscegenation laws imposes no burden whatsoever on religious freedom. It does the opposite in fact.
There had been some religious groups that oppose interracial marriage - for example, one Baptist church in KY (Banning the anti-miscegenation laws imposes no burden whatsoever on religious freedom. It does the opposite in fact. ).
So, logically speaking, gay and mixed marriages are the same concept - a form of marriage that some churches find unacceptable, but that are becoming generally accepted by society.
Your declaration of "false analogy" only works for your particular religious perspective.
-
Not apologizing, but, yes, I do believe in God and the Bible as he wrote it. It is unfortunate that so many people no longer believe in God, but other than live an exemplary life and talking when I can about Him, there is not a lot I can do about it. I love IHD, but the pattern of it has changed very subtly since I joined in 2008. Then, we all joined in on the fight against this nasty disease we all have or are connected to, to support others and share our knowledge. Now, if any one dares to make a statement there are 10 or more people ready to jump on them for any reason at all. I do believe it s called "bullying". Think about it next time you lay your fingers on your keyboard. Everyone has the right to enter any thread if they care to, even if they do not write prolific page lengths. But, you are all grown ups, so I am preaching to the choir.
Nicely said, Jean!
-
Banning the anti-miscegenation laws imposes no burden whatsoever on religious freedom. It does the opposite in fact.
There had been some religious groups that oppose interracial marriage - for example, one Baptist church in KY (Banning the anti-miscegenation laws imposes no burden whatsoever on religious freedom. It does the opposite in fact. ).
So, logically speaking, gay and mixed marriages are the same concept - a form of marriage that some churches find unacceptable, but that are becoming generally accepted by society.
Your declaration of "false analogy" only works for your particular religious perspective.
Sorry, you are still wrong. Please list the ways in which the 1967 Supreme Court ruling on anti-miscegenation laws had any impact whatsoever on religious freedom in the US? Please list specific cases where it impacted religious liberty.
I can on the other hand not only list but give absolute examples of how the gay marriage issue has already had a negative impact on personal religious freedoms in the US, Canada and Europe.
If a Baptist preacher KY had a false belief that the Bible supports banning interracial marriage, he was and always will be wrong from a biblical perspective as well as socially. BTW, what Baptist preacher are you speaking about or is it just your fertile imagination that Christianity opposes interracial marriages? Please give me your source or you are once again putting forth a false premise to serve as the basis for your false analogy.
Please read the Humanist Manifesto II above and keep in mind that one of their goals was to redefine traditional religious practices. That is why the entire debate on the definition of marriage is an important issue and of no surprise. This is one of their goals and we are seeing it enacted through our political and judicial circles. Does no one have any concerns about a new world view that is being acted out in our political realms? Clearly the Humanist Manifesto does NOT at all support true religious freedom and tolerance since it is indeed an entire document devoted to countering traditional religious values and substitute them for their own "growing faith."
-
Hemodoc, you asked where you said that you were cherry picking the Bible. You did not say that. I am the one who is saying that you cherry pick the Bible.
It is full of contradictions, so you must be picking out the parts you want to believe and ignoring the rest. That is cherry picking. And BTW, which Bible is the right Bible? Are you reading one that has already had the contradictions ironed out? Who decided what to include and what to eliminate? And have you read it in the original Greek? Have you looked at all the early books that were once included in the Bible but are not included anymore? Who decided what to keep and what to toss? Was that god speaking through humans? Why not write it correctly the first time through? And about those contradictions, was god confused about what he wrote and wrote something else? Isn't god supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful?
That preacher in Kentucky cited earlier in this thread probably believes just as strongly as you do that he follows the TRUE word of god. What makes him wrong and you right?
And please provide those "absolute examples of how the gay marriage issue has already had a negative impact on personal religious freedoms in the US, Canada and Europe." I cannot see where allowing any consenting adults to enter in any marriage infringes on you or your church to assemble and believe whatever you want (or any other variant of Christianity to do the same). Of course it doesn't allow you to FORCE others to live by your beliefs. But that wouldn't be freedom, would it? If your idea of religious freedom means that everyone must live by YOUR creed, you have a very strange
concept of freedom.
I know many Christians who do not find gay marriage as abhorrent as you do. What makes your brand of Christianity better than theirs?
I absolutely uphold and respect your right to believe whatever you want. Or for anyone to believe whatever they want about marriage. I do not uphold your right to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them. I am an ordained humanist celebrant and I perform many weddings. If gay marriage were legal in my state, I would be more than happy to oblige gay couples who wanted to marry. Some of the nicest people I know are gay and are in loving relationships. I am happy whenever they are afforded more of the same rights that others have.
And I have to agree with Jean about your use of "my friend." It comes across as somewhat snarky and/or insincere because you tend to use it when addressing those with whom you most strongly disagree.
Aleta (a happy atheist)
-
And I have to agree with Jean about your use of "my friend." It comes across as somewhat snarky and/or insincere because you tend to use it when addressing those with whom you most strongly disagree.
Aleta (a happy atheist)
YES! Enough with the "my friend." It is condescending at best.
While we are at it stop with the brown skin wife crap. Marrying someone other than a Caucasian woman does not prove that you are not racist in anyway and stating so just makes you look ridiculous.
-
Hemodoc, you asked where you said that you were cherry picking the Bible. You did not say that. I am the one who is saying that you cherry pick the Bible.
It is full of contradictions, so you must be picking out the parts you want to believe and ignoring the rest. That is cherry picking. And BTW, which Bible is the right Bible? Are you reading one that has already had the contradictions ironed out? Who decided what to include and what to eliminate? And have you read it in the original Greek? Have you looked at all the early books that were once included in the Bible but are not included anymore? Who decided what to keep and what to toss? Was that god speaking through humans? Why not write it correctly the first time through? And about those contradictions, was god confused about what he wrote and wrote something else? Isn't god supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful?
That preacher in Kentucky cited earlier in this thread probably believes just as strongly as you do that he follows the TRUE word of god. What makes him wrong and you right?
And please provide those "absolute examples of how the gay marriage issue has already had a negative impact on personal religious freedoms in the US, Canada and Europe." I cannot see where allowing any consenting adults to enter in any marriage infringes on you or your church to assemble and believe whatever you want (or any other variant of Christianity to do the same). Of course it doesn't allow you to FORCE others to live by your beliefs. But that wouldn't be freedom, would it? If your idea of religious freedom means that everyone must live by YOUR creed, you have a very strange
concept of freedom.
I know many Christians who do not find gay marriage as abhorrent as you do. What makes your brand of Christianity better than theirs?
I absolutely uphold and respect your right to believe whatever you want. Or for anyone to believe whatever they want about marriage. I do not uphold your right to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them. I am an ordained humanist celebrant and I perform many weddings. If gay marriage were legal in my state, I would be more than happy to oblige gay couples who wanted to marry. Some of the nicest people I know are gay and are in loving relationships. I am happy whenever they are afforded more of the same rights that others have.
And I have to agree with Jean about your use of "my friend." It comes across as somewhat snarky and/or insincere because you tend to use it when addressing those with whom you most strongly disagree.
Aleta (a happy atheist)
WOW, are you having a bad day or something? Sorry, but the Bible is NOT full of contradictions but I don't believe I will try to convince you of that. I use the King James Bible for several reasons. It is the Word of God in the English language. However, I don't believe a debate with an avowed atheist on "which" Bible will be fruitful since you don't believe any of them.
I don't read the Bible in the "original" Greek since all of the extant Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons have been corrupted in large part by the Westcott and Hort folks, but that is quite another discussion. I have found that my choice to stick to English alone was in retrospect the correct choice. In my 20 years of studying the Bible, I have only had to go to an original language definition for two verses only. One for the explanation of the prophesy that Jesus would be a Nazarene quoted in Matthew. The word Nazarene is not in the English OT. But the word BRANCH is. Nazar is the Hebrew word for branch. The second was in the book of revelation for a Greek transliterated word. Other than that, I find the use of perverted Greek and Hebrew lexicons a great distraction and not the manner in which the Bible states to study the Bible. One respected author calls it burning the Bible one word at a time. In any case, sorry if I don't meet your standards as a Bible scholar using the original Greek and Hebrew, but that has been to my own great advantage in understanding God's Holy word.
I don't cherry pick the Bible at all, I believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God. Sorry, but you are grossly in error with that false accusation and I must scratch my head how you picked that accusation out of thin air.
My brand of Christianity is quite simple. I believe that the Bible is the true, literal Word of God. I could go into my salvation testimony showing why I believe that, but I will not bother since it is my own personal testimony. I have nothing to prove to you on this. If you wish to not believe the Bible so be it. Aleta, you are further mistaken that I push my views on you or anyone else. I exercise my right to free speech and freedom of religion, but if that doesn't shake your tail, so be it. To each his own. So where do you get the notion that I push my beliefs on anyone? Sorry, you are sorely mistaken.
BTW, the gospel is such that as a Christian, we do offer to tell anyone who wishes about the love of Christ, but if not interested our duty is to only offer. Christianity is a religion of choice and free will. The statements you are making belie your ignorance on what Christianity really is. Your view of what Christianity is I am afraid is quite in error.
Now, just because I disagree with your views does not make you my enemy. Once again, you fail to understand what Christians are if you take issue with this. If I wish to address someone as a "friend," what objection could possibly have to that in a debate? Oh well, go figure.
Now, the "preacher in Kentucky" is here once again, but to date it appears to be a hypothetical argument and not one in fact. In addition, you fail to understand that there are probably more enemies of the true gospel of Christ operating from within the churches and doing great damage than those who are outside of any church establishment. remember the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Christ Himself warned his followers about. So even if you do find an example of someone who espouses this belief, it is likely that that have many such heretical views on the Bible.
Now, back to the issue at hand, how the gay rights movement is in fact attacking the first amendment religious freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. You KEEP stating over and over again, that I am imposing my views on you when in fact the humanist movement especially in the last ten years is doing just the opposite, imposing a secular humanist religion on all of America in such a manner it trumps Christian beliefs. I find this no accident.
If you read through the Humanist Manifesto II which I assume you have and endorse, it is clearly an Anti-theistic document to say the least. The fact that many prominent members of our society signed this document and the fact that several years later we see the fruits of this politically is not at all coincidence. It is instead a very deliberate and coordinated attack on traditional Judeo-Christian morals in the US and throughout the world especially in the western nations. Having a document that has very specific goals in 1973 and what we see before us today is the realization of those goals written down over 40 years ago is evidence of how many have taken up this cause. In any case, the Humanist Manifesto III makes it plain and clear where folks like me fit in who hold religious convictions:
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_iii
So, I assume you agree with bringing about an "open, secular society." In such a setting, where is there room for anyone who believes in a Christianity which is in direct conflict with your goals of a "secular" society? It looks like the answer will be there is no room for us. Thus, Aleta, who is imposing their views on whom?
What you fail to comprehend is that the highly religious people of the US in 1789 preserved their religious liberties in the constitution and YOUR right to not believe in God all in one document. Your Humanist Manifestos are blatantly anti-God and anti-religion and their goals of transforming America into an anti-God and anti-religion society are quite far along. One of their most important tools to reign in religion is indeed the entire gay rights as a civil rights. It is indeed a powerful tool. The bakers in OR today are the prelude to going after the churches themselves. Once again, this thread is about the attack on first amendment rights and religious freedom. The Humanist Manifesto II prefaced all of this in 1973. Redefining marriage is just one of their planks.
-
And I have to agree with Jean about your use of "my friend." It comes across as somewhat snarky and/or insincere because you tend to use it when addressing those with whom you most strongly disagree.
Aleta (a happy atheist)
YES! Enough with the "my friend." It is condescending at best.
While we are at it stop with the brown skin wife crap. Marrying someone other than a Caucasian woman does not prove that you are not racist in anyway and stating so just makes you look ridiculous.
YL, so good to hear from you once again, my friend. Yes, I have stated quite a few times that I do not consider you my enemy.
Secondly, to what end should I attempt at all to make you believe I am not racist. If that feels good to believe that YL, go for it. My good friend Kevin will have a good chuckle over that. In fact, at least half of the people I have close contact are of color whether brown or black including Kevin. So YL, have a great day once again and good to hear from you again.
-
Hemodoc, you said:
Sorry, but the Bible is NOT full of contradictions but I don't believe I will try to convince you of that.
From the King James Bible web site: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Contradictory-Wisdom-in-Bible.php (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Contradictory-Wisdom-in-Bible.php)
It's all about interpretation. Whose interpretation is the RIGHT interpretation? And if the Bible is open to interpretation, why wasn't it written more clearly as the word of god.
My brand of Christianity is quite simple. I believe that the Bible is the true, literal Word of God. I could go into my salvation testimony showing why I believe that, but I will not bother since it is my own personal testimony. I have nothing to prove to you on this. If you wish to not believe the Bible so be it. Aleta, you are further mistaken that I push my views on you or anyone else. I exercise my right to free speech and freedom of religion, but if that doesn't shake your tail, so be it. To each his own. So where do you get the notion that I push my beliefs on anyone? Sorry, you are sorely mistaken.
Where did i say that you push your beliefs on others? I consider this an exchange of ideas in the free market of said ideas. You are free to believe whatever you want as am I. You are free to argue your case as am I. My concern is about having the government support one religion over others or over none. A secular society would allow for private worship without government sponsorship or economic support. On the other hand, allowing religious beliefs to power legislation tramples the rights of those who don't hold those religious beliefs.
How is a Christian backed government any different in function from one based on Sharia law? It seems to me it is simply a difference in creed, not function.
BTW, the gospel is such that as a Christian, we do offer to tell anyone who wishes about the love of Christ, but if not interested our duty is to only offer. Christianity is a religion of choice and free will. The statements you are making belie your ignorance on what Christianity really is. Your view of what Christianity is I am afraid is quite in error.
This actually supports my point. Every Christian has his or her own view of what Christianity means to them and considers that personal view the RIGHT one. With all these "right" ways of viewing Christianity, I confess that I cannot pinpoint just what any one Christian believes. The range of belief among my Christian friends is truly astounding and quite divergent. Each of them thinks that what they believe is the one true way to believe. With this vast variety among Christians, it is no wonder that folks from different religions have a hard time getting along. So, how is it that you can be sure that YOUR Christian faith is the true one and all the others are false? I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to understand. It would just seem that an all-powerful god would have been able to construct his "word" in a way that would have left no room for this kind of confusion among those who are trying to follow that word.
Now, the "preacher in Kentucky" is here once again, but to date it appears to be a hypothetical argument and not one in fact. In addition, you fail to understand that there are probably more enemies of the true gospel of Christ operating from within the churches and doing great damage than those who are outside of any church establishment. remember the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Christ Himself warned his followers about. So even if you do find an example of someone who espouses this belief, it is likely that that have many such heretical views on the Bible.
Here again, what one Christian says is heretical, another Christian can support with "facts" gleaned from the Bible. Interpretation is truly problematic for those who follow the Bible. Who gets to say which interpretation is the RIGHT one and which is heretical?
I HAVE read both Humanist Manifestos. Both promote the removal of religion from government support and privilege. You quoted it well: Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
A secular society that upholds diversity also upholds the civil rights of those of ALL religions. A ban on gay marriage is totally based on religious views. Your particular Christian view bans it. Why should that religious view dictate what others want to do in civil affairs?
So, I assume you agree with bringing about an "open, secular society." In such a setting, where is there room for anyone who believes in a Christianity which is in direct conflict with your goals of a "secular" society? It looks like the answer will be there is no room for us. Thus, Aleta, who is imposing their views on whom?
By insisting that gays not be given to right to enter into legal unions, you are imposing your views on them. You are not being told you cannot believe that gay unions are a sin. You may believe whatever you wish. By imposing your religious view about gay marriage on them, they are being robbed of civil rights.
Aleta
-
I guess this would upset you, Hemodoc. Some things that Christians do upset me, too. But that doesn't mean I want to prohibit them from doing them.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/story/entry/with-you-always-letters-to-my-wife (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/story/entry/with-you-always-letters-to-my-wife)
-
1) The Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III are all predicated on the notion that God is NOT real and there is no evidence of God. I used to believe that in my prior life, and thankfully, the Lord reached out to show it is not so. God is real.
2) God defined marriage already. That is one of the issues that the Humanist Manifestos stated that they would accomplish. They are well on their way to fulfill that goal. However, point number one is a false premise. God is real. The issue is already settled by our Creator.
3) The Bible interprets itself. I could go into a long discussion on this, but why? Will I convert you? I doubt it. If you are interested, I will spell it out. Send me a pm if you wish. In short, interpretations belong to God alone. Private interpretations are where men get into confusion. When you follow Gods laws on interpretation and apply them interpretation is astoundingly easy WHERE God has spelled it out. Sadly, there is much false teaching on "hermeneutics" that ignores completely the simply steps of interpretation beginning first that interpretation belongs to God alone. Hermeneutics is sadly a system of private interpretation made on man's laws.
I disagree strongly with your statement that the word of God is not clear. That is not my conclusion after studying the Bible in depth for 20 years.
4) Understanding the word of God is a different issue since the Bible states it is a matter of spiritual discernment.
I Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
5) Where have I ever stated I want a theocracy????
6) The Humanist Manifesto goes way beyond simply removing your so called Christian influences. The very fact that gay rights trumps first amendment religious freedom is indeed an example of the Humanist Manifesto goals in play. They are looking for a new non-theistic faith of their own and are at complete odds with traditional theistic religions. It is once again a religious worldview imposed upon those who don't agree. This secular humanism religion is very much a state sponsored religion just as you state you are against. It is a "new faith" that they are looking to impose upon all people. Who is imposing upon whom?
7) There you go again making statements that I have never stated. I have asserted that the gay marriage issue is a states rights issue under the 10th amendment. If folks wish to vote for gay marriage state by state, I don't and won't support that, but it is left to the will of the people. What part of imposing my views on someone else is found in that statement?
Once again, if folks wish to take a democratic vote and issue gay marriage in a given state, that is up to them for the will of the people. The Bible made it clear over 2000 years ago that indeed, the will of the people in the end times would be the same as in Sodom and Gomorrah. That is not a surprise at all, but quite sad to see nevertheless.
-
5) Where have I ever stated I want a theocracy????
Where did I say that you wanted one?
They are looking for a new non-theistic faith
This is a contradiction of terms. One can have a theistic faith, but non-theists base their conclusions on evidence instead of faith.
7) There you go again making statements that I have never stated. I have asserted that the gay marriage issue is a states rights issue under the 10th amendment. If folks wish to vote for gay marriage state by state, I don't and won't support that, but it is left to the will of the people. What part of imposing my views on someone else is found in that statement?
I'm not sure what this references. Could you clarify? You HAVE stated that allowing gay marriage is an attack on the first amendment. I am still not clear how you make the case for this without "imposing" a ban on gay marriage.
-
How is a Christian backed government any different in function from one based on Sharia law? It seems to me it is simply a difference in creed, not function.
Isn't that in essence a theocracy as you are describing?
Why do you assume that I did not base my faith on evidence? My testimony is exactly based on evidence and the Bible is chalk full of evidence.
To clarify, I believe that many are USING the gay marriage issue as an attack on first amendment rights which are trumped by gay rights. However, despite your false accusations of my imposing my will on others, if that is the way folks wish to exercise their free will, so be it. That is their right under the 10th amendment. I have already made this statement several times over in several different threads.
I understand clearly that Jesus already overcame this world and whatever we have in this world, so be it. I have no doubt that we shall see America turn into Sodom and Gomorrah in our life times. That is what the will of the people is, so be it. God has already spoken. It is simply a sign of the times.
-
Okay, now I really am confused....
You answered this:
Quote
5) Where have I ever stated I want a theocracy????
Where did I say that you wanted one?
with this:
How is a Christian backed government any different in function from one based on Sharia law? It seems to me it is simply a difference in creed, not function.
Isn't that in essence a theocracy as you are describing?
So is it that you DO want a Christian backed government? I still don't see where I said that was what you wanted. I'm trying to clarify here.
I also haven't said that "you" are imposing "your" will on others. I have said clearly that you are free to believe whatever you want, but the government should not be imposing religious doctrine on any one. How would you impose your will on others? I don't consider an exchange of ideas an act of imposing one's will. Do you?
I understand that you find the Bible all the evidence you need for the existence of god. I find it no more compelling than stating that the Harry Potter series is evidence of Hogwarts (unless you count reifying a concept). Arguing the existence of god based on the Bible as evidence is fruitless, as you have already stated. My questions about the varied certainties of Christianity really stemmed more from a desire to understand why one take is more "right" than another. If every sect or branch or even individual Christian church claims to be the one true faith, all following the word of god as stated in the Bible, how does anyone know which is true? I find it very confusing.
Through scientific inquiry humans have garnered a vast amount of physical evidence for how the universe works. This evidence can be replicated. I will continue to base my world view on this kind of "evidence." If there were compelling evidence of this kind for the existence of any god, I would be the first in line to look carefully at it. There isn't. I don't think there is a god, just as I don't think there are invisible pink unicorns. I am an atheist, not an anti-theist. I live a rich and fulfilling life without a belief in the supernatural. You live a rich and fulfilling life (I hope) with a belief in the supernatural. We should both be free to make those choices.
Here is the exact text of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Once again, how is the gay marriage issue an attack on the first amendment? Has your freedom to condemn gay marriage been abridged? Has my freedom to support gay marriage been abridged? Has your free exercise of religion been abridged? How do the civil rights of gays (or any other group of humans) trump the first amendment? Please explain this to me. I have asked you for this clarification previously, but you have not provided it. I would really like to understand this how this fits.
-
We don't have a theocracy, i.e., a Christian backed government. We have a Republic that grants guarantees of natural rights, one of which is the right to religious freedom. America was based on a combination of common law and civil law which interestingly are a bit in opposition at times. The common law as described by William Blackstone is based in large part on the Bible. Charles Finney became a Christian during his law studies while reading Blackstone's commentary. Blackstone's Commentary served as one of the most important resources when developing the laws of the US during our foundation.
http://findingtimeforgod.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/a-lawyer-beats-the-law-charles-finney/
http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php
No doubt, there is a huge Christian influence on the Common law, but the form of government chosen was not a monarchy, theocracy or even a democracy, it was a republic based on the rule of law. The laws were a mixture of common law and civil law, but the greatest single influence was that of Blackstone as many commentators have put forth.
So, what do I support, a republic based on the rule of law and granting the guarantee of natural rights.
-
How do gay rights infringe first amendment liberties?
I thought I had made this quite clear. The Oregon bakery incident is quite striking. Exercising Christian values by NOT participating in gay marriage is now chastised. That is a direct infringement of first amendment rights. As in Europe and Canada, the courts have decided along the lines of the Humanist Manifesto's elevating gay rights above religious freedom.
-
How do gay rights infringe first amendment liberties?
I thought I had made this quite clear. The Oregon bakery incident is quite striking. Exercising Christian values by NOT participating in gay marriage is now chastised. That is a direct infringement of first amendment rights. As in Europe and Canada, the courts have decided along the lines of the Humanist Manifesto's elevating gay rights above religious freedom.
Again, nonsense. The "bakers in Oregon" incident is ridiculous.
1. They were NOT asked to 'participate in a gay marriage'. They were asked to bake a cake, for which they would be compensated, and which they refused to do - for one couple. For reasons they trumpeted loudly and widely as being religious, confessing to breaking the law. If they had simply said no to the couple, without making sure everyone knew this was prejudice-based, there would be issue.
This is no different than running a hotel, and refusing to rent rooms to Asian people. Or to anyone wearing red, or anyone the owners suspect might be Buddhist. The law states that if you are selling to the general public, you may not refuse certain people based on a general class of personal prejudice. They knew that, broke the law, confessed to breaking the law, and are now making far more money being professional victims. Nice work if you can get it.
They are also making this "principled refusal" based on a single principle, while ignoring hundreds of others imposed by the Bible. Do they ascertain whether each couple has been intimate prior to the marriage, and refuse all such couples? Do they ascertain whether the couple will be wearing mixed fibers at the wedding (definitely prohibited by the Bible)?
Since they are hardly following the dictates of their religion, it is baffling for them to call this religious persecution.
But there are a lot of people in this country who are very eager to be victims.
-
Yes, I guess the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling is just a figment of my imagination as well.
Mixed threads? Come on out of the OT Rocker.
Since when do you not get married if you committed fornication prior to marriage? What church are you going to that teaches you that Rocker? I guess you don't remember Jesus who said, "Go and sin no more" to the woman caught in the very act of adultery. You continue to display an amazing ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.
They didn't wish to participate in a gay marriage, simple as that and they should have that right in accordance with their religious beliefs.
If you read over the New Mexico document essentially ordering photographers, you will see gay rights trump religious freedom in the court. Obviously, it will not stop at the level of businesses, these laws will one day and likely soon be applied to the churches themselves as happened in Europe and Canada already.
Not looking to be a victim at all my friend, quite the contrary, we have the victory in Christ in all things. Sorry, but Christ is real. God is real. All of your arguments are predicated on the false assumption that God is not real. That is not a wise assumption to make my friend.
Have a great day Rocker.
-
I thought I had made this quite clear. The Oregon bakery incident is quite striking. Exercising Christian values by NOT participating in gay marriage is now chastised. That is a direct infringement of first amendment rights. As in Europe and Canada, the courts have decided along the lines of the Humanist Manifesto's elevating gay rights above religious freedom.
All right. I think I now understand your point, although I disagree with it.
I think civil law SHOULD supersede religious "law." Ours is a civil government, not a theocracy. The founding fathers were very clear on establishing it as such. So, where religious practices (discrimination of gays in this case) go counter to civil law, those practices fall outside the law. Just as those whose religion bans medical intervention may be held accountable for the deaths of children when medical intervention could prevent those deaths.
This gets back to having to decide which religions are "right."
You think that yours is right and that gays should be treated as second class citizens. Others might think that their religion is right and that those who discriminate against gays are second class citizens. The practice of religious freedom ends where it crosses the boundary of legality.
-
I thought I had made this quite clear. The Oregon bakery incident is quite striking. Exercising Christian values by NOT participating in gay marriage is now chastised. That is a direct infringement of first amendment rights. As in Europe and Canada, the courts have decided along the lines of the Humanist Manifesto's elevating gay rights above religious freedom.
All right. I think I now understand your point, although I disagree with it.
I think civil law SHOULD supersede religious "law." Ours is a civil government, not a theocracy. The founding fathers were very clear on establishing it as such. So, where religious practices (discrimination of gays in this case) go counter to civil law, those practices fall outside the law. Just as those whose religion bans medical intervention may be held accountable for the deaths of children when medical intervention could prevent those deaths.
This gets back to having to decide which religions are "right."
You think that yours is right and that gays should be treated as second class citizens. Others might think that their religion is right and that those who discriminate against gays are second class citizens. The practice of religious freedom ends where it crosses the boundary of legality.
Not true again. The founding fathers based the majority of our new constitution on the Common law which as documented by Blackstone is derived with the Bible as the highest authority. They did use some elements of the civil law which came from many sources including the Romans. The military developed their code of military justice based more on the civil laws. The Common law gave us trial by jury. Civil law gives us tribunals.
Just as we see such civil laws as the Military Commissions Act which establishes tribunals, we also see more and more adherence to civil laws. The Common Law Religious liberties which also stem forth from natural rights is now directly at odds with civil law by granting gay marriage as a civil right. Study the differences between the Common Law and Civil Law history and you will see that over and over again, the founding fathers chose the basis which is founded first on the Bible.
Now, they did NOT establish a theocracy, but they did not eschew the influences of the 10 Commandments and the rest of the influence of the Bible on the Common Law. We have a Republic and a constitution which guarantees natural rights.
-
I thought I had made this quite clear. The Oregon bakery incident is quite striking. Exercising Christian values by NOT participating in gay marriage is now chastised. That is a direct infringement of first amendment rights. As in Europe and Canada, the courts have decided along the lines of the Humanist Manifesto's elevating gay rights above religious freedom.
All right. I think I now understand your point, although I disagree with it.
I think civil law SHOULD supersede religious "law." Ours is a civil government, not a theocracy. The founding fathers were very clear on establishing it as such. So, where religious practices (discrimination of gays in this case) go counter to civil law, those practices fall outside the law. Just as those whose religion bans medical intervention may be held accountable for the deaths of children when medical intervention could prevent those deaths.
This gets back to having to decide which religions are "right."
You think that yours is right and that gays should be treated as second class citizens. Others might think that their religion is right and that those who discriminate against gays are second class citizens. The practice of religious freedom ends where it crosses the boundary of legality.
Not true again. The founding fathers based the majority of our new constitution on the Common law which as documented by Blackstone is derived with the Bible as the highest authority. They did use some elements of the civil law which came from many sources including the Romans. The military developed their code of military justice based more on the civil laws than the Common Law and has some noted differences. The Common law gave us trial by jury of our peers. Civil law gives us tribunals of judges.
Just as we see such civil laws as the Military Commissions Act which establishes tribunals, we also see more and more adherence to civil laws. The Common Law Religious liberties which also stem forth from natural rights is now directly at odds with civil law by granting gay marriage as a civil right. Study the differences between the Common Law and Civil Law history and you will see that over and over again, the founding fathers chose the basis which is founded first on the Bible.
Now, they did NOT establish a theocracy, but they did not eschew the influences of the 10 Commandments and the rest of the influence of the Bible on the Common Law. We have a Republic and a constitution which guarantees natural rights. They were not at all afraid to speak openly of their Christian faith. As a politician, saying that they were an atheist in an overwhelmingly Christian nation would not fly. Today, we are no longer a predominantly Christian nation but a secular one. Looking at the issues of the 1700's through the lenses of today's society gives erroneous impressions of the founding fathers and their documents. The establishment clause is just that, no denomination will be the state religion as in Europe, but they were not anti-religion as so many mistakenly interpret the first amendment. If a man by his Christian faith is led to not participate in a gay marriage, the founding fathers did not have an issue with that at all. That is what the first amendment was for, religious freedom and the liberty to fully exercise that faith openly.
The constitution in no manner forbid states from openly requiring Christian faith as a prerequisite for serving in government for instance as seen in the original MA constitution. It simply did not allow the state to establish a certain denomination as the state sanctioned church as they had in Europe. Failing to understand the essential elements of what the first amendment did or did not at the foundation underlies much of the confusion of what it means today.
-
Mixed threads? Come on out of the OT Rocker.
Yes, that's typical "cafeteria Christianity". The kind that says the only important laws in the Bible are the ones I already agree with.
It's a shame that Jesus didn't agree with that. Read Matthew 5:17-20.
Since when do you not get married if you committed fornication prior to marriage?
Since when is fornication no longer a sin?
You continue to display an amazing ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.
Uh huh.
They didn't wish to participate in a gay marriage
They were never asked to participate in a gay marriage.
-
1) Yes, that's typical "cafeteria Christianity". The kind that says the only important laws in the Bible are the ones I already agree with.
It's a shame that Jesus didn't agree with that. Read Matthew 5:17-20.
Matthew 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Rocker, do you REALLY wish to discuss the meaning of Matthew 5:17-20??? It is a wonderful set of verses that you are probably correct are not well understood. However, I could quote a whole bunch of verses showing that we are not under the law anymore, even though the law shall NEVER change. The Mosaic or Sinai covenant is different than the NT covenant written in the blood of Jesus. One requires a human priest to make offerings yearly as well as other commandments, the other is a covenant made by the death of Jesus who ONCE gave His life for us. People who apply the OT Jewish laws to Christians were and are called Judaizers. It is actually a heresy that Paul dealt with in several of his epistles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers
Simply put, why would think that an OT law to children of Israel applies to a born again Christian. Do you not understand the old and new covenants? If you wish, I would be more than happy to explain in detail why your answer does show your ignorance of this issue. We are not under the Mosaic law my friend.
Here is one admonition from Paul on this very issue that I just happened to read a couple of hours ago for another unrelated reason:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
We could discuss this issue at great length if you wish, but you are in error on the meaning of Matthew 5:17-20 which by the way has been an incredibly important set of verses to me personally. The law does remain though my friend but not for those who are born again living by the "grace" of God. It is completely intact for those who do not believe and it is what God shall judge the lost by.
I Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Christians have already been forgiven for all of our sins. We will not stand in judgement for them even though the Lord does rebuke and chastise us here and now for them when we fail to live to His wishes. When we live the life Christ has for us, this is what we are to follow:
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Lastly, you need to understand that Jesus did not destroy the law, but He did take it and bares the burden of the law upon Himself for us. Take a look:
Colossians 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
It says above that Jesus took these ordances away, but He did not destroy them at all. He nailed them to the cross baring the burden of the law for us who are saved by His grace. Therefore, Paul says, let no man judge you by the law in verse 16. In addition, I could go into quite long discussion on the prophetic significance of Matthew 5:17-20 but only if you wish.
2) Since when is fornication no longer a sin?
Never said it was no longer a sin did I. Since when is getting right with the Lord and MARRYING instead of remaining in sin condemned my friend? God does not punish someone for repenting and doing right. Once again, you are in great error. Let us look at what Jesus said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery:
John 8: JESUS Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
So, according to you, the bakers SHOULD condemn a couple who are living in sin but are now going to marry according to God's commandments. That is not the message of Christianity. Read what Jesus said. Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more.
3) They were never asked to participate in a gay marriage.
Sure it is my friend. Baking a cake for a wedding is a very involved affair from what I have seen with many hours of work to bring it to pass. Many deliver and set up the cake and at times bring it out during the reception. Sure, it is indeed a very direct involvement. There are a whole lot of reasons to not engage in business with another person. Personal religious convictions have up until now been a well recognized reason for choosing such a course.
In addition, since God is indeed real, the baker is correct to give warning to the gay couple to go and sin no more. So how is it that you wish the baker to participate in what they rightly consider to be a behavior that God shall judge according to His law as you correctly noted in Matthew 5:17-20. Yes, Matthew 5:17-20 still applies to those who shall stand before God in the great white throne judgement noted in Revelation chapter 20.
Since you appear to want to consider the OT, there is a verse in the OT that Paul paraphrased in the NT.
Ezekiel 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
-
*
-
Mom fights back: Teacher tells daughter she can’t choose God as her idol
I know someone who used to work in the legal department of a major school system.
One thing to always remember when you hear these outrageous school stories is this: Children in school are almost always (as in this case) minors, and protected by privacy laws. The school cannot, by law, comment on individual cases. The parents, on the other hand, are free to hold as many press conferences as they like, saying anything they wish.
You are only ever getting one side of the story. The teacher or school system cannot say "No, what really happened is this -". That's why the school statements will always say things like "Our policy is....", because that's all they are allowed to comment on.
My favorite outrageous school story was the little boy who was charged with sexual harassment by the school for giving a girl on the swing a sweet little kiss on the cheek. Outrageous!
Except, people who knew the situation (not the school) eventually revealed that the boy had been a constant discipline problem in the school, hitting and biting other students. He had focused particularly on one little girl, constantly hitting and poking her and generally making her life miserable. He ignored all punishments, and was eventually moved to another classroom to separate him from her. At recess one day, he saw her sitting on the swing. He ran over, grabbed her by the hair, yanked her head back, and bit her on the cheek. And he was never "charged with sexual harassment", he was suspended for repeatedly ignoring warnings to change his behavior.
That was the sweet little boy who just wanted a kiss.
So I really don't trust any "outrageous" school stories, whether I tend to agree with them or not. I've heard the other side of a few of them.
-
^
-
In this situation what's "outrageous" is the teacher's lack of understanding
Is that what the teacher said? Or are you only basing this on the mother's [thirdhand] account?
-
Back to "cafeteria" Christianity. This little cartoon sums up many of the contradictions of the Bible. While Rocker calls this cafeteria Christianity, I call it cherry picking the Bible to find what one wants to believe from it and tossing the rest. So, going back to the bakery, why do the owners serve people who have committed adultery? Isn't THAT cherry picking from sins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk)
Aleta
-
Now let's look at the premise that the civil law of the USA is based on the 10 commandments. Here they are:
***
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
***
I don't think the Constitution says ANYTHING about numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,9, or 10.
So, perhaps we could say that the Constitution reflects 1/5 of the commandments. Not a very good track record for claiming that the laws of our country are based on the 10 commandments.
Aleta
-
Back to "cafeteria" Christianity. This little cartoon sums up many of the contradictions of the Bible. While Rocker calls this cafeteria Christianity, I call it cherry picking the Bible to find what one wants to believe from it and tossing the rest. So, going back to the bakery, why do the owners serve people who have committed adultery? Isn't THAT cherry picking from sins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk)
Aleta
Did you even bother to read my very lengthy response to Rocker? Oh well, it is senseless to continually responded to false allegations. Matthew 5:17-20 must be taken in context to what the law means in the OT and the NT. But in any case, believe as you wish but it is Rocker in gross error on this issue, but once again, really no sense in trying to correct your vision or Rocker's vision of Christianity.
-
Now let's look at the premise that the civil law of the USA is based on the 10 commandments. Here they are:
***
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
***
I don't think the Constitution says ANYTHING about numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,9, or 10.
So, perhaps we could say that the Constitution reflects 1/5 of the commandments. Not a very good track record for claiming that the laws of our country are based on the 10 commandments.
Aleta
Dear Aleta, I suggest you do a better study on the Common Law and Civil Law. Then look at the influences of the Common Law moreso than the Civil Law in our founding documents which by the way starts with the declaration of Independence. Remember, it is 1776 that the US became a nation, not 1789.
Not much to respond to Aleta, you need to do some more homework on this issue.
Take care,
Peter
-
The Wiki has a good write up on the origins of the Civil law as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
Here is Blackstone's Commentary on the Law which was one of the most important references when framing our founding documents:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
Here is an excellent overview of Blackstone's influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/blackstone.htm
In addition, in the 1950's, Blackstone was honored for his contributions to the US laws in relief portrait in the US Capitol itself even though Blackstone himself was against the American revolution in a bit of irony over his influence on these documents. This is what is stated on his portrait:
Sir William Blackstone (1793-1780) English jurist; professor of common law at Oxford; author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, which had considerable influence on the importation and adaptation of English common law in America.
http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers/sir-william-blackstone
Aleta, I could post much more on this subject, BUT WHY? You don't even have a rudimentary understanding of this subject no more than Rocker has any understanding whatsoever about the OT law in NT times. Aleta, you and Rocker have much homework to do on these issues. Go do your homework and perhaps we could actually have a meaningful debate. Until then, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of these issues.
-
Hmm, nothing like a jugful of condescension poured liberally over any attempt at discussion to make one think "Oh good grief, Charlie Brown."
-
Dear Aleta, I suggest you do a better study on the Common Law and Civil Law. Then look at the influences of the Common Law moreso than the Civil Law in our founding documents which by the way starts with the declaration of Independence. Remember, it is 1776 that the US became a nation, not 1789.
Not much to respond to Aleta, you need to do some more homework on this issue.
Take care,
Peter
Sorry, Peter. I am not claiming to be an expert and I don't accept your condescending attitude as a good argument.
On the other hand, I have taken several courses on the Bible. There are so many "laws" in the Bible that are completely ignored in any legal system today, that I can't help but wonder why the "word of god" is held up as the basis for our Constitution. And quibbling over the date of the beginning of our country is rather silly. The colonies declared independence in 1776, but did not put our current government in place until later. So what?
Back to the question of gay rights, and whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gays for religious reasons - as a physician, would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of gays? Why or why not? Would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of unwed mothers? Isn't adultery a sin? What about people who are divorced?
If you can condone treatment for some of these folks, but not others, I would consider that cherry picking the laws of the Bible. That brings me back to the same confusion that I have trouble getting past. Who gets to decide which things to follow in the Bible and which things to ignore if the whole thing is supposed to be the word of god?
And why did this sacred word shift so dramatically from the OT to the NT? Did god change his mind? Make a mistake?
-
Dear Aleta, I suggest you do a better study on the Common Law and Civil Law. Then look at the influences of the Common Law moreso than the Civil Law in our founding documents which by the way starts with the declaration of Independence. Remember, it is 1776 that the US became a nation, not 1789.
Not much to respond to Aleta, you need to do some more homework on this issue.
Take care,
Peter
Sorry, Peter. I am not claiming to be an expert and I don't accept your condescending attitude as a good argument.
On the other hand, I have taken several courses on the Bible. There are so many "laws" in the Bible that are completely ignored in any legal system today, that I can't help but wonder why the "word of god" is held up as the basis for our Constitution. And quibbling over the date of the beginning of our country is rather silly. The colonies declared independence in 1776, but did not put our current government in place until later. So what?
Back to the question of gay rights, and whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gays for religious reasons - as a physician, would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of gays? Why or why not? Would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of unwed mothers? Isn't adultery a sin? What about people who are divorced?
If you can condone treatment for some of these folks, but not others, I would consider that cherry picking the laws of the Bible. That brings me back to the same confusion that I have trouble getting past. Who gets to decide which things to follow in the Bible and which things to ignore if the whole thing is supposed to be the word of god?
And why did this sacred word shift so dramatically from the OT to the NT? Did god change his mind? Make a mistake?
Funny how all of these political threads always devolve into an anti-Christian diatribe. The topic is the loss of first amendment protections. Trying to stay within that realm a little bit, you continue to not understand what Christianity is all about.
I am glad you have taken courses on the Bible, but it appears you haven't really heard the message the Jesus sent forth. God created us, He gave us a free will for very simple reason, for love to be real, it has to be a free choice. That in a nutshell is at the heart of Christianity summed up in John 3:16.
John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
That is the greatest act of love ever bestowed upon anyone since the beginning of time. It appears folks have taught you that the Bible is not reliable or true and that this is just a story. That is how I looked at it until I was 36 years old a few years after finishing my training and starting my practice.
You posted a very "cute" little video on alleged Bible contradictions. If you wish, start a new thread on this and we can go over each one. I have studied these alleged contradictions and their is only one I have not been able to explain from the text itself, but that does not exclude that both accounts were accurate, but separated by a short period of time in which God softened His judgement to David as David considered his error. In any case, the contradictions you alluded to, just are not so.
I was saved through the study of Bible prophecy and it was the fact that one specific prophecy I knew when it was written and I knew how it was being fulfilled exactly even today. On that day, the Lord showed me personally without any doubt that His word is not only true, but literally true. I am more than happy to discuss these issues with you in a pm if you wish.
But back to the issue of gay marriage.
1) God defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The marriage relations are to be in the context of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman. The Bible teaches any sex outside of that design is a sin. Not my law, but God who created us and God who will be our judge when we stand before Him.
2) I did treat many gay and lesbian couples and singles. I did treat many who were admittedly in the state of adultery or fornication. BTW, I never met a person who was not a sinner yet. Thus your question becomes one that has no answer since it is based on a false understanding of Christianity. I am divorced myself. That is not the issue. The issue is not contributing support for anyone remaining in that sin. Remember, Jesus stated to the woman caught in adultery, Neither do I condemn, go and sin no more. That is the message, go and sin no more wether someone is committing the sin of fornication, adultery are homosexuality.
Here is another verse that sums it up:
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Christians following in the footsteps of Jesus are not here to condemn the world as you imply in your question, but to send the message of how to come to know Jesus and sin no more. So it is NOT at all a contradiction as you are trying to imply to treat gay couples or adulterers or fornicators or any of the multitude of sins we commit but at the same time state you would not participate in any manner with a gay marriage which is against God's laws. In other words, we will not condone what God does not condone. That is at the same time not a condemnation since we are all under the condemnation of sins within our own lives. But to participate in that and in essence give tacit approval to staying within what God has defined as a sin would be in error of the admonition, go and sin no more.
That is exactly what the bakers in OR have so stated. That is the basis for their objection to baking a cake for an openly gay marriage event.
3) I went to a couple of my patient's weddings at their invitation, but if they had been a gay marriage, no, I would not have gone. In fact, there is more than one couple that got married through my counsel and they were all grateful.
4) OT vs NT. The purpose of the law was to keep the children of Israel so that the prophecies of the Messiah could come to pass. The OT laws cannot save since no man can live without any sin. Shucks, trying living even one hour without committing any sin of commission or omission. But Paul tells us why the OT laws were given very succinctly.
Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The promise of the seed of Abraham, singular, i.e., that Jesus would come from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is fulfilled in Christ as our Saviour and Messiah. The law kept the people of Israel from not keeping that promise to Abraham and bound them in a society, chosen of God to bring these things to pass. The redemption of mankind through the blood of Jesus who God the Father gave of His own Son for all of us as a ransom for our sins. Jesus fulfilled all of the law for us since none of us can fulfill the law. The law then convicts us of our sins and that should lead us into repentance. That is what Paul is talking about in the book of Romans among other things.
By the way, don't worry if there are things difficult to understand especially when reading Paul's epistles, that is what Peter the apostle himself said of Paul's very involved commentaries. (II Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.)
Now, back to the common law. You are looking at these issues with the lenses of a 21st century citizen. Go back to the founding father's writings which include the declaration of independence since that is our first founding document. In that document, there are many common law expressions of the natural rights of man. In addition, between 1776 and 1789, most of the states developed their own constitutions. The one in MA is very important in understanding the role that Christianity played in our founding documents which did include the constitution and the bill of rights since much of the language in the Bill of Rights especially is predated in many of the state constitutions. In addition, the Federal constitution did not abrogate any of the state constitutions at all.
The role that Blackstone's commentaries on the common law are well documented. There is a large difference between the Common law which Blackstone contended was subject to the final authority of the God of the Bible, and civil law which came from many sources including a large contribution from Roman law developed without any Christian influence.
Not only is Blackstone's relief portrait in congress, but that of Moses as well due to his contribution to American law. Here is the testimony of his contribution with his portrait:
Moses (c. 1350-1250 B.C.) Hebrew prophet and lawgiver; transformed a wandering people into a nation; received the Ten Commandments.
http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers/moses
Looking at the historical nature of our founding documents, the influence of Christianity on these documents is quite evident.
-
Christians following in the footsteps of Jesus are not here to condemn the world as you imply in your question, but to send the message of how to come to know Jesus and sin no more. So it is NOT at all a contradiction as you are trying to imply to treat gay couples or adulterers or fornicators or any of the multitude of sins we commit but at the same time state you would not participate in any manner with a gay marriage which is against God's laws. In other words, we will not condone what God does not condone. That is at the same time not a condemnation since we are all under the condemnation of sins within our own lives. But to participate in that and in essence give tacit approval to staying within what God has defined as a sin would be in error of the admonition, go and sin no more.
Isn't this a slippery slope?
Isn't treating gays giving tacit agreement to their "choice" of lifestyle. I put choice in quotes, since I do not think it is a choice any more than one chooses one's gender. In the decades that I have been teaching I have been able to recognize children who were gay long before they knew it. They didn't choose that orientation. They were born that way. I met a young woman today who told a story on herself. She said that when she got her dog she told him that he was the only man for her. She said that it was only later in life that she realized that she was gay and that her dog WOULD be the only man in her life.
If it IS a choice, then it would seem that helping a gay person in any way would be aiding and abetting, so to speak. If it isn't a choice, then didn't god make them that way?
I find these questions very troubling. Troubling because as you realize I do not accept the authority of the Bible. Those who do, think it is right to deny rights to gays. Those who don't, think gays whould have all the rights of every other person.
-
1) Who defines "rights?" There was a time in this nation that the answer to that question was God. Not today. Take God out of the equation and every man will do what they find right in their own mind.
2) No slippery slope whatsoever. Here is the message, we are ALL sinners. If I don't serve sinners, then I am a hermit since no man is worthy, we have all fallen short of the grace of God, there is none righteous, not one. We ALL need a Saviour. No man can ever be "good" enough to go to heaven on our own worth. Your view of Christianity is not what the Bible teaches. The gospel is a nutshell is this. One beggar telling another beggar where to find good bread. Jesus is that bread of life, the living waters that washes away our sins. Once you have that bread of life, you don't want to go back. I will keep the words of God and be thankful that this beggar, me, had someone kind enough to show me where to find the good bread.
So, you are saying that I shouldn't help any person who is gay because that is aiding them? Sorry, not the story of Christ. Once again, the woman caught in the very act of adultery. Let's let Jesus speak for Himself here:
John 8:JESUS Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
So, the woman was caught in adultery, the punishment under the law was death by stoning. Jesus said, let the one without sin cast the first stone. He was the only without sin. When her accusers departed, he said who accuses you? She said, no one. God Himself said neither do I condemn. Here is the point of difference, and then He added. GO AND SIN NO MORE.
I have tried to explain this concept so many times, not sure what more I can say. We are all sinners. God did not come here to condemn the world but to save it. Acknowledge your sins and SIN NO MORE. The bakers would not be able to keep that last part of saying SIN NO MORE by participating in baking a wedding cake for an openly gay wedding. That is the issue, GO AND SIN NO MORE. That is exactly what the bakers stated was their intent in refusing to bake the cake.
However, in today's world that has cast away God, Roman based civil laws prevail over the Common law based on the highest authority of the Bible per Blackstone. It is a paradigm shift in our culture. However, God is still real and He has not changed even though we have. The modern ethics of civil rights will not play well on the day we will all give account before our Creator. That is something I have no doubt shall occur. Counting on no judgement at the end of time here on earth is not a winning strategy.
3) There is no proof of the gay gene. Saying people are born this way is an age old debate that will not be settled on IHD. I have faith in the word of God even in areas where I cannot prove by available evidence what is the right answer. God states it comes about in a different matter and that it is a sin like any other willful choice we make.
Those that say that they were born that way are in part true since God states we are all born of the Adamic natural man nature which is manifested in Sodom and Gomorrah. There are a multitude of ways to fail God. This is just one among many. In any case, the debate on wether folks are born gay or it is a choice will not be decided on IHD.
-
If one believes that God will judge our sins at the end and we are all sinners and doctors will treat all who need treating since all are with sin, should we not simply do our jobs whatever they might be and allow God to do the judging at the end. The serving of customers, the treating of patients, the defending of criminals within a justice system does not mean that one agrees with or condones all of their beliefs or actions.
I certainly do't feel up to the task of deciding whose sins warrant my boycott unless those trespasses are specifically against me. ..in which cases I think I'd want help from our imperfect legal system. I paraphrase the Dalai Lama in saying that my religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
-
If one believes that God will judge our sins at the end and we are all sinners and doctors will treat all who need treating since all are with sin, should we not simply do our jobs whatever they might be and allow God to do the judging at the end. The serving of customers, the treating of patients, the defending of criminals within a justice system does not mean that one agrees with or condones all of their beliefs or actions.
I certainly do't feel up to the task of deciding whose sins warrant my boycott unless those trespasses are specifically against me. ..in which cases I think I'd want help from our imperfect legal system. I paraphrase the Dalai Lama in saying that my religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
Well, if God is real, which I firmly believe He is for many reasons, and His word is real, then we should all pay attention to what the Bible states. Judgement is where we are all headed before a righteous judge, including the Dalai Lama himself.
Then the story of the woman in adultery is absolutely at hand in this case, GO AND SIN NO MORE is the message from Jesus. That is what Christianity preaches as well, repent and go and sin no more. If that is your belief, then treating any man is an act of kindness and mercy as a doctor. Representing the guilty is an act for past sins and the lawyer I am sure is in essence telling his client, go and sin no more by telling them to keep themselves clean so that the current case goes better.
Lastly, I challenge anyone to consider that there is no greater act of love and kindness than John 3:16-17:
John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
The Dalai Lam may have man's wisdom, but will he prepare anyone for the judgement to come?
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
-
Peter, with all due respect, I understand your point and also that it comes from your deeply held conviction of the truth of the Bible and of Jesus's exhortation for us all to GO AND SIN NO MORE. It seems to me however that while this may well be pertinent for each individual to try to live up to, each Christian is not Jesus nor should he try to sit in judgment of the sins of others given that each human has sins enough of his own with which to deal. We all must interact regularly with folks who sin, who have sinned and who will sin again and to refuse to bake cakes, or treat patients or represent clients etc. seems to me quite un Christian.
I think we would all do well to proceed through life with acts of kindness as our action goals, regardless of religion or philosophy and then at the end God can judge.
I really do understand that you believe in the Bible and all that it says, I respect your conviction, and I also know that others are guided through life by a variety of religious views or organizing principles. I am not up to judging others or even trying to exhort them to behave...I have enough to look at within myself.
-
Peter, with all due respect, I understand your point and also that it comes from your deeply held conviction of the truth of the Bible and of Jesus's exhortation for us all to GO AND SIN NO MORE. It seems to me however that while this may well be pertinent for each individual to try to live up to, each Christian is not Jesus nor should he try to sit in judgment of the sins of others given that each human has sins enough of his own with which to deal. We all must interact regularly with folks who sin, who have sinned and who will sin again and to refuse to bake cakes, or treat patients or represent clients etc. seems to me quite un Christian.
I think we would all do well to proceed through life with acts of kindness as our action goals, regardless of religion or philosophy and then at the end God can judge.
I really do understand that you believe in the Bible and all that it says, I respect your conviction, and I also know that others are guided through life by a variety of religious views or organizing principles. I am not up to judging others or even trying to exhort them to behave...I have enough to look at within myself.
No problem Monrein, unfortunately, the modern ethics such as in the Human Manifesto II is predicated on the assumption that God is not real and that we should free ourselves from the "shackles" of traditional theism. Sadly, they didn't consult God about that new modern ethics. While I respect your right to decide for yourself, I do take issue that the Baker's actions are "un-Christian." If you wish to state you disagree with them, that is fine, but they were in fact acting in complete accordance with the word of God and the gospel of Jesus. He forgives our sins, but He does not support our sins. For the bakers in OR, they were completely following the proper teachings of Christ. Once again, if you disagree that is your right, but it is indeed the correct Christian response in line with Go and sin no more.
There is a very popular saying that just about everyone understands, Christian or not. WWJD. What Would Jesus Do? In the context of the gay marriage issue, just would forgive their sins and say, go and sin no more. For the bakers in OR, WWJD is just that, go and sin no more. That is quite Christian in fact.
-
I am not speaking strictly about bakers. Should Christian doctors, or landlords or lawyers or grocery stores etc etc etc refuse to do business with sinners? I simply think not. So many sins, so many sinners, kindness is a Christian virtue and judgment is the business of God. Many places would be quite devoid of business if they catered only to repentant or willing to be repentant sinners.
-
I've gone back and read quite a few past and more recent articles about Sweet Cakes, and in none of the statements by the owners have they said anything at all about their religious beliefs including "GO AND SIN NO MORE." When they explain just what their religious beliefs are, they state that they are not against gays but are, rather, against same sex marriage...that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The owner, Aaron Klein, stated that he believed that a man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife. No where is he quoted as explaining that the message he was trying to convey to this same sex couple was, in fact, "Go and sin no more." He further explained that he did not want his kids to see him backing down from his religious beliefs, which, again, doesn't really seem to include the "Go and sin no more" entreaty. He acted pridefully.
This may be a small quibble, but the same sex couple in question were lesbian, and I am not sure that the Bible addresses lesbian relationships. The Bible is pretty much all about men, and while a certain passage may forbid a man from laying with a man as he may with a woman, it doesn't seem to place any such restrictions on women. So if one takes the Bible literally, lesbians get a pass...and should get a cake.
I have to wonder if the bakery owners care that, in their exertion of their religious freedom, made someone feel bad. Is there such a thing as "justified unkindness"?
-
Sadly, they didn't consult God about that new modern ethics.
How does one "consult God"?
-
Sadly, they didn't consult God about that new modern ethics.
How does one "consult God"?
It's called payer my friend.
-
I've gone back and read quite a few past and more recent articles about Sweet Cakes, and in none of the statements by the owners have they said anything at all about their religious beliefs including "GO AND SIN NO MORE." When they explain just what their religious beliefs are, they state that they are not against gays but are, rather, against same sex marriage...that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The owner, Aaron Klein, stated that he believed that a man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife. No where is he quoted as explaining that the message he was trying to convey to this same sex couple was, in fact, "Go and sin no more." He further explained that he did not want his kids to see him backing down from his religious beliefs, which, again, doesn't really seem to include the "Go and sin no more" entreaty. He acted pridefully.
This may be a small quibble, but the same sex couple in question were lesbian, and I am not sure that the Bible addresses lesbian relationships. The Bible is pretty much all about men, and while a certain passage may forbid a man from laying with a man as he may with a woman, it doesn't seem to place any such restrictions on women. So if one takes the Bible literally, lesbians get a pass...and should get a cake.
I have to wonder if the bakery owners care that, in their exertion of their religious freedom, made someone feel bad. Is there such a thing as "justified unkindness"?
Dear Moosemom,
Your views of the Bible are not in line at all with what the Bible teaches.
1) Aaron Klein pointed out that, like the majority of practicing Christians, he and Melissa hold no animosity toward homosexuals. He told Fox News that their refusal boils down to their faith in God. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/16469-oregon-bakery-closes-over-owners-refusal-to-serve-gay-wedding
Yes, you are in part correct that they never used the words that I did, but in fact, the sentiment is the same. They serve gays and others, but participating in a gay wedding is a form of endorsement of that practice. Refusing to participate is in line with go and sin no more. They expressed it as: “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
Is it more kind to say nothing giving tacit support to the gay marriage and then watch as God judges those people at a later time? Is that a kind act? No, the kind act is to warn all that there is a judgement day.
2) Lesbians in the Bible. Well, actually yes, they are mentioned. Here is one passage:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Not sure where you are learning about the Bible, but NO ONE gets a pass as you say, we shall all give account for everything we have done in our bodies, whether good or bad.
Once again, this is a thread on the loss of first amendment rights, not on Bible doctrines. Funny how all these threads turn into a diatribe against the Bible.
-
I do not agree that "the sentiment is the same." You put words into Mr. Klein's mouth. While I understand YOUR motivations, I think you are overvaluing HIS. I do not think he had any purpose at all in trying to teach that couple to "go and sin no more". Again, this was all about HIS moral righteousness and HIS desire to portray a certain image to his children. It was all about HIM. So no, I do NOT think the sentiment is the same because he proclaimed an entirely different one, based in his pride on how well he perceives he is following the word of God.
Mine is not a diatribe against the Bible, rather, it is one against those who use the word of God to cloak unkindness. If you want to call this practice "asserting first amendment rights", then so be it. They got to have their say, and so did their previous customers. The place is now closed because people didn't want to give their business to Sweet Cakes any more. The public asserted their first amendment rights with their feet and with their wallets.
-
I do not agree that "the sentiment is the same." You put words into Mr. Klein's mouth. While I understand YOUR motivations, I think you are overvaluing HIS. I do not think he had any purpose at all in trying to teach that couple to "go and sin no more". Again, this was all about HIS moral righteousness and HIS desire to portray a certain image to his children. It was all about HIM. So no, I do NOT think the sentiment is the same because he proclaimed an entirely different one, based in his pride on how well he perceives he is following the word of God.
Mine is not a diatribe against the Bible, rather, it is one against those who use the word of God to cloak unkindness. If you want to call this practice "asserting first amendment rights", then so be it. They got to have their say, and so did their previous customers. The place is now closed because people didn't want to give their business to Sweet Cakes any more. The public asserted their first amendment rights with their feet and with their wallets.
Moosemom, you seem ready to castigate folks that simply believe participating in a gay marriage is wrong, and you do so in a very strong manner. Why so angry Moosemom? Yes, it is a diatribe against the Bible in that you are always questioning it over and over and over again.
In any case, this is a first amendment rights issue.
The fact that the place is closed is not just because folks asserted their first amendment rights, it was on the threat of boycotting other businesses that did business with them as well. All this in a state where gay marriage is not even legalized. Go figure.
The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
Here is one more quote from the Kleins on why they didn't participate:
The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” she said. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/#ixzz2f5cnFtkQ
Yes, you are quite wrong that the sentiment involved is not exactly the same as go and sin no more.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/#ixzz2f5ccZZWQ
-
I'm not sure I would be comfortable with everyone using WWJD as their ethical compass as Jesus did and said some pretty reprehensible things.
On the other hand, this guy has a refreshing take on the question that seems to reflect the gist of Monrien's comments about judging others. http://johnshore.com/2013/05/07/wwjd-if-invited-to-a-gay-wedding/ (http://johnshore.com/2013/05/07/wwjd-if-invited-to-a-gay-wedding/)
-
I'm not sure I would be comfortable with everyone using WWJD as their ethical compass as Jesus did and said some pretty reprehensible things.
On the other hand, this guy has a refreshing take on the question that seems to reflect the gist of Monrien's comments about judging others. http://johnshore.com/2013/05/07/wwjd-if-invited-to-a-gay-wedding/ (http://johnshore.com/2013/05/07/wwjd-if-invited-to-a-gay-wedding/)
Wow, Jesus did some pretty reprehensible things????
I have heard lots of folks attack Jesus on many different levels, but you take it to a level that I have never heard. Did you not know that when they brought Jesus before the Jews in his trials, that no one could truthfully accuse Him of ANY sin whatsoever and they had to send someone with false accusations to bring Him before the Sanhedrin?
In any case, believe as you wish and please feel free to take up all of the Lord's alleged reprehensible actions when you stand before Him. But on that day, it won't be you accusing the Lord of anything I am afraid, quite the opposite.
-
I don't doubt for a minute that the Kleins got all kinds of horrible emails and facebook rants. This is the way Americans communicate these days, with hostile diatribes and juvenile name calling and unveiled threats. It's too bad that the Kleins were faced with that, and I wish this were a kinder and gentler nation, but that's the way of social media nowadays. I've read all of the articles you've provided links to, but I've also read the comments that follow, and they are decidedly un-Christian, not to mention "militant".
If God approves of the Kleins, I'm sure He will reward them.
-
Where is the proof of all of these supposed threats? Where are the facebook postings or phone messages or any other concrete evidence of threats from "militant" LGBT people? Were the police contacted? Did Fox News exercise due diligence? It sounds to me like the Kleins are just saying a lot of stuff to Fox News, and Fox News is reporting it without doing any research. Has any news organization actually heard recording of these threats? Or is everyone just going to their word?
Yes, yes, yes, of course, the Kleins are liars as well. Where have I heard that accusation before?
-
Sigh, I just lost another reply and this is rather wearing on my post-op body, so I'll make it brief.
In Matthew Jesus advocates lying. I'm not sure I can agree with that. He also admits to breaking the sabbath. I don't find that reprehensible, but it does give grounds for claiming that he sinned. I had compiled many more instances in the lost post, but my energy is not up to recreating that....
In any case, believe as you wish and please feel free to take up all of the Lord's alleged reprehensible actions when you stand before Him. But on that day, it won't be you accusing the Lord of anything I am afraid, quite the opposite.
Thank you. I will believe as I wish and sincerely hope that you will feel free to believe as you wish. The difference is, though, that my belief does not include a vengeful god who would sentence me and other guiltless people to an eternity of torture simply for not believing in him. That, to me, IS reprehensible. I thought your god was supposed to be a god of love, not a god of fear. So, I guess in some ways I consider myself nicer than your god.
I consider myself nicer than your god because I don't think it is kind to discriminate against others for their sexual orientation, or their religion, or their color, or their nationality, or their intelligence, or their stature, or for what ever reason some people find to discriminate.
I also don't veil my wishes for you to hold true with your beliefs with scare tactics. In no way do I try to send the message that if you choose a belief different from mine you will "live" to regret it. That borders on bullying and I don't consider that an altogether nice way to treat others. I have noticed that it IS rather accepted as a way to communicate with those who disagree with Christian beliefs. Oddly, my Christian friends often tell me that I am a better "Christian" than they are. I don't know what to make of that since I am in no way a Christian and think Jesus, if a true individual, was in no way divine. But I am a Humanist, which means that I try to be kind and do good works. I want to leave the world a better place than it was when I entered it.
You seem hold Humanism in disdain, viewing it as a movement that wants to eradicate religion. That is a false assumption. Humanism does hope to remove religion from government, though.
-
Where is the proof of all of these supposed threats? Where are the facebook postings or phone messages or any other concrete evidence of threats from "militant" LGBT people? Were the police contacted? Did Fox News exercise due diligence? It sounds to me like the Kleins are just saying a lot of stuff to Fox News, and Fox News is reporting it without doing any research. Has any news organization actually heard recording of these threats? Or is everyone just going to their word?
Yes, yes, yes, of course, the Kleins are liars as well. Where have I heard that accusation before?
Well, as you see, I deleted that post because I DO believe they received threats, actually, as I noted in my edited post.
But I've been wondering why Christians who supported their business practices didn't come to their aid with their support. And where were the Christians who supported the Klein's vendors? Surely gay couples are not the most profitable of these people's customers. Why didn't Christians go all Chick-fil-A? I just find it very hard to believe that same-sex couples really have so much economic power that they can effectively shut down all businesses that supply Christian bakeries. I think there are more people at work here than just "LGBT militants". I suspect that most Americans find discrimination tarted up as "religious freedom" to be disingenuous, and THAT's the real reason behind the Klein's business difficulties.
-
Sigh, I just lost another reply and this is rather wearing on my post-op body, so I'll make it brief.
In Matthew Jesus advocates lying. I'm not sure I can agree with that. He also admits to breaking the sabbath. I don't find that reprehensible, but it does give grounds for claiming that he sinned. I had compiled many more instances in the lost post, but my energy is not up to recreating that....
In any case, believe as you wish and please feel free to take up all of the Lord's alleged reprehensible actions when you stand before Him. But on that day, it won't be you accusing the Lord of anything I am afraid, quite the opposite.
Thank you. I will believe as I wish and sincerely hope that you will feel free to believe as you wish. The difference is, though, that my belief does not include a vengeful god who would sentence me and other guiltless people to an eternity of torture simply for not believing in him. That, to me, IS reprehensible. I thought your god was supposed to be a god of love, not a god of fear. So, I guess in some ways I consider myself nicer than your god.
I consider myself nicer than your god because I don't think it is kind to discriminate against others for their sexual orientation, or their religion, or their color, or their nationality, or their intelligence, or their stature, or for what ever reason some people find to discriminate.
I also don't veil my wishes for you to hold true with your beliefs with scare tactics. In no way do I try to send the message that if you choose a belief different from mine you will "live" to regret it. That borders on bullying and I don't consider that an altogether nice way to treat others. I have noticed that it IS rather accepted as a way to communicate with those who disagree with Christian beliefs. Oddly, my Christian friends often tell me that I am a better "Christian" than they are. I don't know what to make of that since I am in no way a Christian and think Jesus, if a true individual, was in no way divine. But I am a Humanist, which means that I try to be kind and do good works. I want to leave the world a better place than it was when I entered it.
You seem hold Humanism in disdain, viewing it as a movement that wants to eradicate religion. That is a false assumption. Humanism does hope to remove religion from government, though.
In the sermon on the mount, the Lord stated, let your yes be a yes and your no a no. I have no idea what you believe Jesus stated to advocate lying.
As far as the Sabbath. The only "law" that Jesus broke were man made laws added to the Sabbath. He showed the Pharisees who confronted Him on this issue the true spirit of the Sabbath.
No, no sins on what He did more than once on the Sabbath.
Lastly, I have no doubt that the God of the Bible will judge all. Yes, He is a God of love, He sent His son, but He is also a God of justice, He sent His son. One act demonstrated His love and His justice. I would continue to reconsider your views on just who God is, but you are certainly free to believe as you wish. After all, for love to be real, you must have the right to choose.
-
Where is the proof of all of these supposed threats? Where are the facebook postings or phone messages or any other concrete evidence of threats from "militant" LGBT people? Were the police contacted? Did Fox News exercise due diligence? It sounds to me like the Kleins are just saying a lot of stuff to Fox News, and Fox News is reporting it without doing any research. Has any news organization actually heard recording of these threats? Or is everyone just going to their word?
Yes, yes, yes, of course, the Kleins are liars as well. Where have I heard that accusation before?
Well, as you see, I deleted that post because I DO believe they received threats, actually, as I noted in my edited post.
But I've been wondering why Christians who supported their business practices didn't come to their aid with their support. And where were the Christians who supported the Klein's vendors? Surely gay couples are not the most profitable of these people's customers. Why didn't Christians go all Chick-fil-A? I just find it very hard to believe that same-sex couples really have so much economic power that they can effectively shut down all businesses that supply Christian bakeries. I think there are more people at work here than just "LGBT militants". I suspect that most Americans find discrimination tarted up as "religious freedom" to be disingenuous, and THAT's the real reason behind the Klein's business difficulties.
You are underestimating the effects of decades of the Humanist movement and other influences on the US population where gay rights especially among the young is considered a civil right. There were many that did support them, however, the attack against these people succeeded by threatening action against other businesses that were a major referral source for them. In addition, the Chick Fil A incident had a national broadcaster helping to arrange a day of protest in support of them. The OR bakers had their issues over several months which finally made the business no longer viable. I find that no surprise given the changing values of the US population.
-
I find that no surprise given the changing values of the US population.
Then good for the population of the US. They seem to be more tolerant than the god of the Bible.
-
I find that no surprise given the changing values of the US population.
Then good for the population of the US. They seem to be more tolerant than the god of the Bible.
Yes, we now are in full agreement throughout most of the sectors of our nation with the people who were in Sodom and Gomorrah. That didn't turn out well for them, it won't for us either. Your arguments are all predicated on the assumption that God is not real. How will you respond when you face Him yourself? Demand answers from Him? Accuse Him of being unjust? Sadly, that will not be a good day for a growing number of people who reject His holy word.
-
This affirms that we are never going to get along, wars will never end, peace is unobtainable.
-
Catholic priests were threatened with arrest if they gave their time and volunteered to offer mass on military posts. Many in the military do not consider religious services unessential. Looks like Obama does. I wonder if he also did the same to the Islamic services as well? Looks like the House just voted to force them to re-open the services.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/04/catholic-priests-in-military-face-arrest-for-celebrating-mass/?intcmp=latestnews
-
And that, Hemodoc is the absolute pits. What a horrible and mean spirited government we have in office now. Pray hard, our country needs it.
-
The US military is at it again by labeling a Christian organization as a hate group that the soldiers must not associate with.
Several dozen U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were told last week that the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because the group advocates for traditional family values.
The briefing was held at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and listed the AFA alongside domestic hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/14/us-army-defines-christian-ministry-as-domestic-hate-group/?intcmp=latestnews&intcmp=latestnews
-
Well, it didn't take long for gay rights to trump religious liberty in Colorado. Bakers in Denver ordered by judge to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. How long before they are ordering churches to perform gay marriages?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/06/judge-orders-baker-to-serve-gay-couples-despite-his-religious-beliefs/
-
Your arguments are all predicated on the assumption that God is not real. How will you respond when you face Him yourself? Demand answers from Him? Accuse Him of being unjust? Sadly, that will not be a good day for a growing number of people who reject His holy word.
Your argument is predicated on the assumption that God is literally historically real. God is a symbol for a mystery which transcends all human thought. Concretizing God as a personality or a father figure closes you off from that transcendent mystery and you're merely stuck with the symbol, as Job found out for himself when his experience of God was entirely at odds with his own projected image of God. My concretizing God as an old man in the clouds, one misses the entire point of religion, which is not supposed to be history or science. Religion is supposed to psychologically break one past the diversity of the world to the imminent unity within.
Most people who call themselves religious are at the point Job was at the beginning of his story, stuck with an image of God he simply couldn't reconcile with his own experience.
-
Your arguments are all predicated on the assumption that God is not real. How will you respond when you face Him yourself? Demand answers from Him? Accuse Him of being unjust? Sadly, that will not be a good day for a growing number of people who reject His holy word.
Your argument is predicated on the assumption that God is literally historically real. God is a symbol for a mystery which transcends all human thought. Concretizing God as a personality or a father figure closes you off from that transcendent mystery and you're merely stuck with the symbol, as Job found out for himself when his experience of God was entirely at odds with his own projected image of God. My concretizing God as an old man in the clouds, one misses the entire point of religion, which is not supposed to be history or science. Religion is supposed to psychologically break one past the diversity of the world to the imminent unity within.
Most people who call themselves religious are at the point Job was at the beginning of his story, stuck with an image of God he simply couldn't reconcile with his own experience.
Hmmm, once again, not much I can debate with you to convince you of what the Bible really is all about, but just a strong disagreement with your private interpretation of all these things. Your experience is not at all what I have experienced. Have a great day.
-
1st Amendment rights. Yep! I have something to say . . . . . Damn, I forgot what it was I wanted to say.
-
God is real. Every knee shall bow....at some point we will know the truth. We don't get out of Judgment.
-
That is the bottom line Rerun. On that day we will all be judged. I don't know about you, but I pray daily for forgiveness. I want to go and be with God when I die, not in the pit of fire.
-
Although I was raised and schooled to be a Catholic, further study of the Bible revealed conflicts, controversy, and some hypocrisy. My own genealogy website shows that one of the three principal translators of the KJB was Edward Lively. He translated Greek and Hebrew manuscript versions of the KJB. He said, “Interpretations can alter meaning”. Catholicism teaches that the Bible is the “word of God”. This cannot be. Men have reinterpreted the Bible many times. That is the reason we have so many religions that call themselves Christians. Yes, men wrote the Bible. At the two Councils of Nicaea, so-called church officials selected the gospels in the New Testament from over 200 differing versions. Those testaments were nothing more than teaching lessons.
Further, the God in the Old Testament is a grumbling, vindictive, coercive God, and has no qualms about slaughtering human beings. Not so in the New Testament. One must ask, what accounts for the difference in the description of a God in the two Testaments? The answer; Men.
The continuing argument about homosexuals and same sex marriage is almost beside the point. Pope Francis recently developed a consistency of biblical interpretation on this matter when he said, “Who are we to judge?” That’s like saying, mind your own damn business. I’ll go with that. What could possibly be wrong with “treat others as you would have them treat you?”
Anyone’s salvation, assuming there is a Heaven and Hell, is a very personal concept. Individuals engaged in same sex marriage or even homosexual sex, may be repulsive to you, but it is not your business to judge. Live and let live. Let the Bible be your guide to living. Taking the Bible literally is a path filled with pitfalls.
Gerald Lively
-
Thanks Gerald for articulating much of how I feel about things. I have great respect for those who choose to live in particular ways according to their belief that they will eventually face judgment but I struggle mightily and am driven crazy by those who feel that the judging is somehow within their realm. If we are indeed to be judged at the end it will surely be in our favour to have treated all with kindness, including those with whom we disagree.
-
I hope we get what we believe.
:flower;
-
Actually, I didn't start this thread as a treatise on religion, but instead on the freedom of religion. Two quite separate issues.
I have no doubt Gerald that we have the Bible faithfully in English in the good old KJV as your ancestor helped translate.
I have no doubt that God alone placed His word in the Bible through His Holy Ghost.
I have no doubt that God set forth what was Scripture and what is not Scripture, not man. The Bible was NOT settled at the council of Nicaea. The Apostles knew what was and wasn't Scripture long before.
I have no doubt that the God of the Bible is both loving and just at the same time. That is why God sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross to satisfy both justice (payment of sins) and love at the same time. In the history of the entire world, there has NEVER been a greater act of love than the gift that God gave of His own son.
I have no doubt that arguing theology on IHD is about as useful as bubble baths for hogs so I won't venture there. In the end we all get to give account for our own sins and no one else.
Now, the issue of first amendment rights is worthy of debate. That is the issue of this thread not religious beliefs in all their forms. The encroachment of gay rights over religious freedom is not new, only new to America. Europe and Canada are well ahead of us on this. It was only a matter of time before it came to our shores as well.
The next step of course will be enforcing this same interpretation in the churches themselves which will directly challenge the first amendment in its entirety. For anyone who loves liberty, I would hope this is an issue that deserves discussion.
-
Thanks Gerald for articulating much of how I feel about things. I have great respect for those who choose to live in particular ways according to their belief that they will eventually face judgment but I struggle mightily and am driven crazy by those who feel that the judging is somehow within their realm. If we are indeed to be judged at the end it will surely be in our favour to have treated all with kindness, including those with whom we disagree.
Keeping the freedom of your own beliefs is not judging. The bakers in recent Oregon case on the same issue stated they held no malice against homosexuals, they simply couldn't condone what they were doing. Once again, quite different issues. Freedom entails the right to say yes or no based on your own conscience. Now, the bakers in the case above have lost their religious freedoms by coercion from the government. Is that a good thing given the power to destroy that the government carries?
-
The title of this thread is about the First Amendment. I assume the author of that title meant freedom of speech, which is only one part of the First Amendment. Having said that, I expressed myself, per the rights outlined in the First Amendment.
My understanding of religion is complex but is based on empirical evidence as I found it. Faith did not enter the picture.
Example: the Council of Nicea took place 1200 years after the birth of Jesus, the apostles were not around. The 200 or so gospels were not all written by apostles. In fact, most gospels were written to reflect what someone else believed an apostle said. For instance, there are more than two gospels with the name "Paul" as the author.
I see organized religion as an entirely separate issue from faith in religion since religion itself is a personal belief. Someday we may see a survey of how many go to church just to hedge their bets that there might be a hell. Then there is the religious right which is not about religion at all. It is about pushing organized religion into officialdom. I will believe what I wish and I will respect those who believe otherwise.
A side note: I wish you wouldn’t quote the Bible on this public forum. I find it offensive.
Gerald Lively
-
Thanks Gerald, but let's start last first. I did NOT quote the Bible, just listed some of the things I believe simply as others before me did starting with you actually. But if I did quote the Bible, what of it? You are defending YOUR first amendment rights, but what of mine? You state what you wish and tell me to not do the same. Go figure.
Canonization of the Bible. The first council of Nicaea in 325 AD is where many credit the biblical canon. Today, many dispute this and place it at the council of Trent or other councils.
I go back to the Bible where Paul and Peter state what is Scripture. That is why I stated that the apostles knew what was Scripture and what wasn't. If you wish to believe in the "other" gospels, so be it. That is your right under the first amendment under freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Returning to the topic, first amendment rights. The religious right. I qualify for someone who would be part of the religious right. I know of no one personally like equated who is pushing for a theocracy. The TEA party is the current harbor for most in the religious right and likewise, I know of no one advocating for a theocracy. Lastly, a theocracy is not advocated in the Bible either. So, that is news to me that I am supporting an effort for a theocracy in the US.
Further, the separation of church and state as I have mentioned several times on IHD originated in America in Rhode Island from it's Baptist founder, William Rogers and is truly the philosophical basis for the founding of Rhode Island as a separate colony.
I know of no one that wishes to have state sanctioned religion like Europe had before America became a colony.
I know of no one, such as those in the TEA party who support constitutional principles that wishes to have a theocracy. That is completely anathema to anyone who supports the constitution and the Bill of Rights, one of which is the topic of this thread.
If there is some fringe group out there who does want a theocracy, that is their right under the first amendment, but it is NOT the goal of anyone or any group in mainstream Christianity nor the TEA party.
Lastly, there are many in times past at this point who used the Christian base for political gain. Today, the religious right is quite "out" in the GOP. I could go into the biblical reasons why seeking political power jointly with the church is not condoned, but I would definitely have to quote the Bible. If you ever wish to hear why that is not a biblical direction, I am more than happy to oblige.
Have a great night, but I respectfully disagree with your pronouncements on the so called "religious right." But I do support your right to speak your mind and quote whatever you wish to quote and that does not offend me in any manner. After all, we both support the first amendment for all people, or are you in support of selective first amendment rights and we should suppress the first amendment rights of folks on the religious right? Your support of YOUR first amendment rights and suppression of my own first amendment rights is a bit confusing.
In any case, have a great night.
-
HemoDoc
It appears you can say what you wish. If you begin quoting the Bible, I will not read it.
-
Further, the separation of church and state as I have mentioned several times on IHD originated in America in Rhode Island from it's Baptist founder, William Rogers and is truly the philosophical basis for the founding of Rhode Island as a separate colony.
I think you meant Roger Williams.
-
The far right-wing of the Republican Party, which includes the Tea Party, do advocate a mix of religion and governance. This did not begin with George W. Bush who proposed appropriations for faith-based organizations nor did it end with a monument in a courthouse sponsored by some judge. Leadership of the far right in the House of Representative have all said something about mixing Christian principles with government, yet this group will not support help for the hungry, needy, or the sick. Strangely unChristian, don’t you think?
George W. Bush talked with God, Nixon prayed on his knees to vanquish his opposition, Santorum proposes to regulate your sex life and along with Bachmann, wants to banned contraceptives and abortions from any government medical service and there are dozens of others in the House who support these ideas – which are all based on religious beliefs.
“Tea Party supporters are much more likely than the public overall to cite “religious beliefs” as the biggest influence on their views of same-sex marriage and abortion. Roughly half of Tea Party backers said their religious beliefs are the most important influence on their views of gay marriage (53%) and abortion (46%).” PEW
“We received your message telling us that you want to keep religion out of schools.God was in our schools for over 200 years. When the radical anti-God people kicked him out:
1) Teen pregnancy went up 500%.
2) VD went up 226%
3) Violent crime went up 544%
4) SAT scores went down for 18 years in a row while before that it had never gone down more than 2 years in a row.
Our petition is to restore the student’s religious freedom given in the 1st Amendment. The bill would not have teacher led prayer but students would be allowed to pray if they wish to do so as well as speak about their faith.”
Frank G. Simon, MD, Director
American Family Association of Kentucky
PO Box 8089
Louisville, KY 40257
Email: fsimon@afo.net Website: http://afaofky.com
Website: http://teapartyofky.com/
Phone: (502) 893-2444
FAX: (502) 897-2426
The US Supreme Court has made several decisions on the separation of church and state, accordingly, to do otherwise is unconstitutional. I could write a book on this subject, but I will spare you the drudgery of reading all of that. If you haven’t notice the trend toward theocracy, authoritianism, and perhaps, fascism, you aren’t paying attention.
You said, “Canonization of the Bible. The first council of Nicaea in 325 AD is where many credit the biblical canon. Today, many dispute this and place it at the council of Trent or other councils.”
First Council of Nicaea - 325
The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪ'si:ə/; Greek: Νίκαια /'ni:kaɪja/ Turkish: Iznik) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5][6]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[7] and promulgation of early canon law
The council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate[58]), that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:[59]
1. prohibition of self-castration
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria (pope), Antioch, and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius
15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The canon itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practise at the designated times.[60]
That man made the rules of organized religion, changed dogma and made many decisions that conflict with those of the Bible, ought to be clear. I maintain that religion is a very personal matter and religious organizations are the antithesis of that concept.
You turn a blind eye to the notion that the Christian Right is involved in politics. Even on the face of it, this is wrong. “Separation” is not a vague word, yet it seems to be the interpretation of the Christian Right. Wasn’t it the Tea Party negatively claimed that our President was a Muslim? Would the religious right-wing vote for a Buddhist, Shinto Priest, Muslim for President? Or a Secular Humanist?
Lastly, you have a First Amendment right to speak your thoughts. I have a right not to listen. Should you be in my home and we were discussing something, I would ask you to not to support your argument with Biblical quotes as you do now. Or, I would toss you out if you failed to stop. Courtesy would require you to stop.
I wrote this without proofing or reorganizing. I hope it makes sense. My eyesight is failing and I can go only so far. Perhaps I focused too much for too long on cathode-ray tube presentations and listened to hard for obscure radio signals. The old eyes and ears are failing. However, I can still scan those old frequencies and identify what the signal is. Kind of useless now.
Gerald Lively
-
Christian principles are not at all the same thing as desiring a theocracy. Enough on that.
I am not Catholic so yes, organized religions have unabashedly perverted the simple gospel message. I don't disagree.
The last two administrations are the most fascist in our history. Are you saying Obama wants a theocracy? Perhaps as a Islamic caliphate perhaps. Once again, desiring Christian principles such as love your enemy, provide for the poor, pay your bills on time, be honest, etc, who doesn't desire that in their government but that does not in any manner support a theocracy. Once again, for constitutionalists, a theocracy is the last thing anyone wants. Christian principles, sure why not. The world would be a better place if more went back to those basics like our founding fathers for instance.
If you don't want to read what I write, fine with me.
Have a great day Gerald, I hope all is well with you.
Peter
-
As a student of social trends, I see the Tea Party promoting fascist principles. Perhaps they do not realize this, perhaps they are as stupid as I imagine them to be.
On religion, perhaps we can agree. I see myself as a Secular Humanist who recognizes the intentions of good behavior espoused by the Bible while recognizing the fallacies of organized religion. As for quoting the Bible to support a point of debate, forget it.
-
As a student of social trends, I see the Tea Party promoting fascist principles. Perhaps they do not realize this, perhaps they are as stupid as I imagine them to be.
On religion, perhaps we can agree. I see myself as a Secular Humanist who recognizes the intentions of good behavior espoused by the Bible while recognizing the fallacies of organized religion. As for quoting the Bible to support a point of debate, forget it.
Thanks for calling me stupid Gerald, go figure, it didn't take you very long to venture there.
Fascist principles???? Seriously Gerald, you need to stop watching the MSNBC propaganda kool aid drinkers. Promoting the principles of the founding fathers is NOT fascism. Go figure. Since when is supporting the constitution fascism??? Scratching my head on that one.
Lastly, why do you keep talking about me quoting the Bible when I have not done that at all in our recent exchanges??? Sorry, but you are way off base young man.
In any case, have a great day Gerald, off to do something better.
-
Unless you make policy for the Tea Party, I didn't call you stupid. You ought to get that much out of my words.
Fascist principles; racism, degrading the role of women, control of private lives, anti-intellectualism, condemnation of university teaching and education, condemnation of liberalism, corporatism (Italian fascism), destruction of contemporary government, rewriting history including text books; all policy decisions common with Hitler and Mussolini and the Tea Party. We could include war as a diplomatic solution, election rigging per ID laws and gerrymandering and a long list of other issues. I am pointing this out as an indication of the trend set by the Tea Party in their actions, not in their propaganda.
-
Dear HemoDoc:
The title of this thread includes advice to those with thin skins. If you can't handle the freight, don't drive the truck.
-
Gerald,
You have given me quite an education tonight. I had NEVER heard of the Tea Party/Fascism accusations so I googled that. Quite an eye opener.
So, quite list you have above, but you are exposing your own biased views founded not at all on rationalism whatsoever while overlooking the massive power grab of the folks in office today.
Freedom of religion, separation of church and state and religious tolerance all have one thing in common, they are Christian principles. Those same Christian principles espoused by the majority that support the Tea Party principles.
If anyone is rewriting history, I would venture it is not the Tea Party folks who are in support of upholding the rule of law established in the constitution. America is indeed no longer a Christian nation today, but it is the secular humanist's that are rewriting early American history. An interesting history lesson documenting the Christian origin of the United States comes from a very surprising source, the US Supreme Court in a ruling in 1892.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
. . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
[/i]
So, that is the world of 1892 and the historical references to America as a Christian nation still held in the records of the US Supreme Court. Today, the prevailing religious view is secular humanism and despite the Christian principles of liberty of conscience to all men, today, the strong arm of government is wiping out any vestige of our obvious Christian origins by taking down memorials with Christian references placed generations ago. The concept of religious liberty espoused today by secular humanism is NOT the conscience of liberty granted by the founding fathers in their enduring wisdom brought forth by the principles of Christianity which brings individual accountability and conscience as the basis of basic human freedoms.
The Tea Party stands for limited government, personal liberty and a return to constitutional republicanism. That is NOT at all fascism as so many propaganda sites exploiting those ignorant of the real virtues of the Tea Party would have folks believe.
So Gerald, you are certainly free to believe and speak whatever you wish, but I would hope it would be free of ignorant propaganda of the true puppet masters in this nation seeking to create polarization and elimination of open dialogue between people with different beliefs. I would hope you could discuss things without resorting to such vehement and ridiculous accusations that are really beneath the respect I have developed for you in times past.
-
Dear HemoDoc:
The title of this thread includes advice to those with thin skins. If you can't handle the freight, don't drive the truck.
Too funny Gerald, not having thick skin is not at all a tenable accusation easily made against me here on IHD. If you have something to discuss, go for it, nothing you say can in any manner offend me.
-
HemoDoc;
I spoke of Tea Party actions, not policy. Policy in that group is propaganda. What the Tea Party does is what counts.
The majority of founding fathers were deists, not Christians.
Take any fact from my post and check it out, it is true, no doubt.
Study the elements of fascism and with an open mind, you should see it. I have already list some of those elements,
I know of the Texas School Board that approves text books got into a controversy about writing in conservative slants on history. The majority of members are from the Tea Party.
Lincoln said government is by the people, of the people, and for the people. I believe him. So, where are those food stamps, unemployment checks, jobs bills, and why the bad position on healthcare? Is not it a Christian principle to help these people?
Will the Tea Party vote for a Muslim President?
Gerald Lively
-
HemoDoc;
I spoke of Tea Party actions, not policy. Policy in that group is propaganda. What the Tea Party does is what counts.
The majority of founding fathers were deists, not Christians.
Take any fact from my post and check it out, it is true, no doubt.
Study the elements of fascism and with an open mind, you should see it. I have already list some of those elements,
I know of the Texas School Board that approves text books got into a controversy about writing in conservative slants on history. The majority of members are from the Tea Party.
Lincoln said government is by the people, of the people, and for the people. I believe him. So, where are those food stamps, unemployment checks, jobs bills, and why the bad position on healthcare? Is not it a Christian principle to help these people?
Will the Tea Party vote for a Muslim President?
Gerald Lively
Not much on first amendment issues, but shucks, let's rip into some of these.
1) Healthcare. Who is defending Obama's position on healthcare today. You will see the majority of Democrats come around to the Tea Party, true healthcare reform positions before the 2014 midterms. As far as health care, centralized control of healthcare is a great danger as we are just beginning to see with the beginning of the Obamacare fiasco. We have yet to see the worst of the roll out, it is only the first salvos of the Obama healthcare debacle. If you really believe big government is where we should head for our health care, then there is not much to debate.
For myself, healthcare should be non-profit and between your doctor and you. Unfortunately, those days are long gone for just about everybody.
2) The 1892 SCOTUS ruling on the Church of the Holy Trinity spells out well the historical background of Christianity in America and it's influence on this nation. Just because Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and others were deists does not in any manner diminish the Christian influence before, during and after their time.
3) You worry about a minority faction with in the minority party in Washington today and these wild allegations of fascism against the so called Tea Party which has no party officers or any official organization. The Tea Party is in fact more of an ideology than an organization. A large number of Tea Party folks are libertarians such as Rand Paul. I don't know anyone who would accuse Rand Paul of being a fascist but apparently some bloggers do. The other aspect of Tea Party folks are mainly evangelical Christians who once again are NOT fascist nor do they desire a theocracy as you keep falsely implying. I listen fairly frequently to these folks and have no clue where you get fascism out of their statements but so be it.
4) Christian elements of helping people. Absolutely but the Bible does not support socialism as the way to do it. Private property ownership and the "Christian" work ethic is at the center of how God Himself supplies our needs. As far as welfare as we know it today, that is not the Bible way. For able bodied people, if you don't work, you don't eat was Paul's admonition to those who did not hold up their own weight in work. For those who were unable to work and the poor, portions of the crops were set aside and the owners were told not to glean the fields. But it was up to the person looking for food to go out and get those provisions left for them, once again if they were physically able. There are many including Dr. Benjamin Carson who extoll personal study and hard word as the solution for poverty, not the current welfare system of the US that locks entire groups into dependency on the government often for life and often through several generations. This locks them into enslavement into permanent poverty and permanent diminished opportunities. Is that really the American dream?
Once again, the SCOTUS ruling in 1892 documents the vast Christian charitable organizations that took care of the sick and the poor:
. . .the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices. . .
But more than that, America was a land of opportunity due in large part to private property ownership and hard work. Today, that is one of the biggest hurdles we face with diminishing opportunity especially for youth without any tangible employment skills. Perpetuating the cycle of poverty, welfare and lack of education is not "Christian." Christian charities continue in abundance in America, but not to the extent that they did a century ago as we continue to see the secularization of American society. Thus, there is no indictment against Christianity, but our society in general and the direction it chooses to head.
I would point out the absolute failure of government agencies after Katrina to care for the people injured and homeless after this natural tragedy, it was instead the multitude of Christian volunteer organizations that gave the greatest help to these people. Government is not nearly as good at helping these folks as you allege.
http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/07_0820_katrina_volunteers_respond.pdf
http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2007/08/superstars-in-t.html
5) Will the Tea Party vote for a Muslim president? NO. Will the Democratic party vote for Ted Cruz? NO. Is that a surprise?
6) The Texas School Board, probably too large a discussion on this thread. Why not open up a new thread just for them if you wish.
7) Lincoln, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Well, nicely stated, but do you believe what we have in Washington today is anything close to that with Obama? Sorry, apply your allegations for the Tea Party against this administration. Not sure why his abuses of power are overlooked and you focus on the so called Tea Party.
An interesting historical application is the implication that the Tea Party is analogous to the National Socialists who brought in fascism to to Nazi Germany. Just as the accusations of racism are completely unfounded, so to is this weird accusation of fascism. Once again, if you wish to debate that off topic issue, open a new thread.
-
Rick Santorum – today said, “If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health. […]”
Margaret Thatcher – “‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands” Her comment on why the opposition was against universal healthcare; “And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote, and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.” She wasn’t going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.
The ACA system is not free, even so, Santorum’s motives may have been described by Thatcher decades ago. As far as the health care system in Britain or in any of the many developed and civilized countries that have a universal health care system, they also are not free but are paid for through taxes. Those health care systems are designed that way because those countries understand that health care should not be marketed but something that all citizens should be provided, no matter their financial status. Someone getting sick is not a time to make a profit but a time to care for him or her, as any decent civilized society should do.
It is a shame that conservatives, especially those who claim the moral high ground because of their religion as Rick Santorum does, cannot understand that simple truth. Jesus certainly understood it as he was always healing the sick, wherever he went, which showed his compassion for them and his understanding that they should not have to suffer or die from being sick.
Certainly, if so-called Christians like Rick Santorum truly followed in the path of the one they claim to follow, and then if they cannot display the power of Jesus to heal, they could at the very least, display his compassion.
-
Your post includes topics already addressed. Apparently you prefer to ignore the factual actions supported by the Tea Party in favor of propaganda. Further, the Bible does not mention socialism. One might interpret Jesus throwing out the "money changers" as an act against capitalism, but I don't believe that interpretation either.
Comparing what the Romans of the time of Jesus and the plethora of prophets roaming around the countryside did, is disingenuous and irrelevant. The ACA and the Tea Party are now. Yet, you claim the Tea Party follows the principles set out in the Bible. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A little lesson in political science would demonstrate the Tea Party's choices of action are elements of fascism. That you don't see this is disappointing. Go Google "Corporatism" for a start. I have covered everything else but you failed to check these things out, or ignored them.
I see that you do not respond with facts that are checkable, which means you are steeped in propaganda, blinded by the bright light of "what if", and will not permit yourself to be persuaded. Therefore, my participation in this thread is over.
-
Rick Santorum – today said, “If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health. […]”
Margaret Thatcher – “‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands” Her comment on why the opposition was against universal healthcare; “And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote, and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.” She wasn’t going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.
The ACA system is not free, even so, Santorum’s motives may have been described by Thatcher decades ago. As far as the health care system in Britain or in any of the many developed and civilized countries that have a universal health care system, they also are not free but are paid for through taxes. Those health care systems are designed that way because those countries understand that health care should not be marketed but something that all citizens should be provided, no matter their financial status. Someone getting sick is not a time to make a profit but a time to care for him or her, as any decent civilized society should do.
It is a shame that conservatives, especially those who claim the moral high ground because of their religion as Rick Santorum does, cannot understand that simple truth. Jesus certainly understood it as he was always healing the sick, wherever he went, which showed his compassion for them and his understanding that they should not have to suffer or die from being sick.
Certainly, if so-called Christians like Rick Santorum truly followed in the path of the one they claim to follow, and then if they cannot display the power of Jesus to heal, they could at the very least, display his compassion.
As you know, Rick Santorum is a strict Catholic. He is NOT stating, don't provide health care, he is instead stating keep it a private matter out of the government's hands. I agree 100% with that. I am not looking forward to government sanctions and regulations dictating what is and what is not allowed health care. My non-profit health care was wonderful. The new world of medicine facing me is only a big question at this time as we enter the world of Obamacare. I am glad I no longer am a provider.
As you know Gerald, the commandments of Jesus are ALL individual mandates to each person. Even if you are in a government position, the mandates were to you in that position as an individual. Our accountability to the Lord is NOT collective, it is individual. Capitalism is indeed mentioned throughout the Bible, but with differences than what we see in the corporate greed of today. Once again, individual mandates to those no matter what position they hold. If you look at the year of Jubilee where all debts are forgiven every 50 years, the Bible's version of capitalism is quite different than that supported by secular humanism and social darwinism.
-
Your post includes topics already addressed. Apparently you prefer to ignore the factual actions supported by the Tea Party in favor of propaganda. Further, the Bible does not mention socialism. One might interpret Jesus throwing out the "money changers" as an act against capitalism, but I don't believe that interpretation either.
Comparing what the Romans of the time of Jesus and the plethora of prophets roaming around the countryside did, is disingenuous and irrelevant. The ACA and the Tea Party are now. Yet, you claim the Tea Party follows the principles set out in the Bible. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A little lesson in political science would demonstrate the Tea Party's choices of action are elements of fascism. That you don't see this is disappointing. Go Google "Corporatism" for a start. I have covered everything else but you failed to check these things out, or ignored them.
I see that you do not respond with facts that are checkable, which means you are steeped in propaganda, blinded by the bright light of "what if", and will not permit yourself to be persuaded. Therefore, my participation in this thread is over.
Let's see where to start:
1) When did I speak about the prophets and Romans???? Lost me on that one Gerald. I did give the historical perspective of American history as evidenced in the 1892 SCOTUS decision, but I am not sure what you are referring to at all.
2) You keep calling the Tea Party fascist which is absurd beyond all imagination no matter how many left wing bloggers perpetuate that lie. Here, let's take a look at how National Socialism is described in one article:
National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated.
Tea Party values expressed many places are freedom, self reliance, work ethic, low government taxation, smaller government and patriotism. This is the exact opposite of subordination of the individual to the state which however is a hallmark of much of what Obama has done. I think Gerald, you need to check out your own team and where it is headed.
While Bush was in office, I believed fascism would come from the right, but he doesn't hold a candle to the usurpation of power Obama has attended to in his time in office. Not much to debate if all you are going to do is echo left wing media talking points.
Have a great night Gerald.
-
You are ignoring facts in favor of propaganda. The paragraph you cut and pasted makes my point which is: the Tea Party's actions lead us down the path to fascism. Look at the highlight you posted.
-
I forgot to mention your debunking of Lincoln's description of government. The day that is no longer true is the day we should begin the revolution.
-
I forgot to mention your debunking of Lincoln's description of government. The day that is no longer true is the day we should begin the revolution.
Well, that is exactly what they want as an excuse for martial law. They win, we lose.
-
You are ignoring facts in favor of propaganda. The paragraph you cut and pasted makes my point which is: the Tea Party's actions lead us down the path to fascism. Look at the highlight you posted.
First, there is no official Tea Party. The multitude of state and national organizations that claim that title of "Tea Party" have only ideology in common. At the grass roots level, support of a constitutional republic is the motivating factor.
Second, please detail how the highlighted portion above is fulfilled by Tea Party actions. The only aspect of similarity is rejection of liberalism. Otherwise, they are completely opposite movements. I would love to hear your detailed explanation with explicit examples please.
-
Looks like quoting the Bible in public is no longer allowed as free speech. Duck Dynasty star silenced by A&E for quoting what the Bible says about homosexuality. How long before they silence the pastors in the US for the same?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/ae-declares-war-on-duck-dynastys-christian-values/
-
Public opinion on certain issues change over time. There are certain opinions that have been removed from the realm of "legitimate personal belief" and society feels, in general, that there is only one approved opinion. For example, a media personality could not expect to keep his job if he made statements like "I don't dislike blacks, but my religion teaches that whites should only marry whites". Explaining that is is a "religious belief" would not protect the media personality from sanctions for unapproved thought.
Proponents of the current gay agenda is to move gayness into the same category where, regardless of religious believe, there is only one approved position on the matter. They are succeeding.
-
Looks like quoting the Bible in public is no longer allowed as free speech. Duck Dynasty star silenced by A&E for quoting what the Bible says about homosexuality. How long before they silence the pastors in the US for the same?
What? Can A&E silence pastors?
-
Public opinion on certain issues change over time. There are certain opinions that have been removed from the realm of "legitimate personal belief" and society feels, in general, that there is only one approved opinion. For example, a media personality could not expect to keep his job if he made statements like "I don't dislike blacks, but my religion teaches that whites should only marry whites". Explaining that is is a "religious belief" would not protect the media personality from sanctions for unapproved thought.
Proponents of the current gay agenda is to move gayness into the same category where, regardless of religious believe, there is only one approved position on the matter. They are succeeding.
Moses married a black woman, so just to be clear, the Bible does not in any manner condone racism of any sort.
As far as what the Duck man stated, he actually paraphrased from the Bible which is what appears to have been his greatest offense.
-
Looks like quoting the Bible in public is no longer allowed as free speech. Duck Dynasty star silenced by A&E for quoting what the Bible says about homosexuality. How long before they silence the pastors in the US for the same?
What? Can A&E silence pastors?
No, not what I was talking about but I suspect you know that MM. :Kit n Stik;
-
Looks like quoting the Bible in public is no longer allowed as free speech. Duck Dynasty star silenced by A&E for quoting what the Bible says about homosexuality. How long before they silence the pastors in the US for the same?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/ae-declares-war-on-duck-dynastys-christian-values/
Hmmm. Seems like you are equating being sanctioned by an employer (who would have the perfect right if it could be perceived that the person were speaking on behalf of the employer), with the right as outlined in the First Amendment.
You then went on with your typical hyperbole. Poor Moosemom. You bashed her on the head for calling you out on such.
-
Looks like quoting the Bible in public is no longer allowed as free speech. Duck Dynasty star silenced by A&E for quoting what the Bible says about homosexuality. How long before they silence the pastors in the US for the same?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/ae-declares-war-on-duck-dynastys-christian-values/
Hmmm. Seems like you are equating being sanctioned by an employer (who would have the perfect right if it could be perceived that the person were speaking on behalf of the employer), with the right as outlined in the First Amendment.
You then went on with your typical hyperbole. Poor Moosemom. You bashed her on the head for calling you out on such.
Perhaps MM was bashing me on the head. It all depends on your perspective.
Thanks for the veiled insult, even Gerald keeps to the issues and avoids personal attacks But oh well, I guess that is your style.
As far as employers, at one time what a person did in their personal life was just that. Not today I guess where employers can silence employees if they don't toe the company line. At one time people respected a person's right to their own political and religious views. Not today any longer.
-
Veiled insult? Somehow I missed that I made an insult, veiled or not.
Still, how is your rant about a free speech issue?
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/19/3091261/duck-dynasty-free-speech/# (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/19/3091261/duck-dynasty-free-speech/#)
-
Veiled insult? Somehow I missed that I made an insult, veiled or not.
Still, how is your rant about a free speech issue?
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/19/3091261/duck-dynasty-free-speech/# (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/19/3091261/duck-dynasty-free-speech/#)
Actually, free speech is inhibited in a society that you will lose your job for simply speaking your opinion publicly. What many found offensive was him quoting the Bible and referencing what the Bible states about those who will or who will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Bible is quite clear on this point. Folks are free to believe what they wish, but I would recommend paying attention to what God has to say about these issues and who indeed will head to hell.
I don't agree with what he stated about black people, but I do support his right to state his views publicly. People are free to criticize him as well. However, for the average person, the threat of losing their job is all it takes to silence people and put fear into their hearts about speaking their mind in public. So, yes, the article is quite wrong. This type of coercive power is enough to silence first amendment freedoms.
-
As far as the issue of free speech, here is the response from the Duck family. They feel as if their first amendment rights of free speech are threatened.
We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement#.UrO_4kYhu5o.facebook
-
I've been mulling over this particular discussion for a while now; I find it very interesting.
I've always said that I believe that people in this country should be free to exercise their first amendment rights but in doing so should be prepared for consequences.
I've always scoffed at the idea that "Christians" (there seems to be a specific definition that escapes me, so in my mind, I equate "Christian" with "evangelical", but I'm unclear on what THAT even means) feel prosecuted or victimized or attacked or marginalized or denied freedom of speech. But I have to confess that when someone describes themselves as "Christian", I find myself rolling my eyes. I started wondering why I react in that manner. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
I started wondering if there is something about the message and/or the messenger(s) that elicit this reaction.
That question rattled more in my brain, keeping me awake this morning despite really wanting to go back to sleep, when I started thinking about the new Pope. Why has there been this outpouring of admiration from so many people, even from those of us who don't label ourselves as "Christian/Evangelical"? What is different about this man and the essence of his message to the world? Why do I not roll my eyes when I hear him speak?
So I went back to the GQ article, reread it and looked through the comments. While I was forming an answer to my above stated questions, I happened to come across this link:
http://www.dwspodcast.com/a-turn-of-events/
I'd be very interested to hear what y'all think of the thoughts expressed here, should you take the time to read it.
I think back to the discussions posted on IHD that focus on faith and religion, and while I do understand that it's not a large or accurate sample, I can't help but notice that these discussions inevitably focus on homosexuality, doom, gloom, accusation, punishment, sin and the right to say stuff. I read very little about joy and hope and the desire to help others and to be Good Samaritans. I read very little that is infused with humility and grace. I read just words and read little about action.
Maybe the Pope is so beloved because he doesn't see homosexuality as the root of all evil. "The gays" are not responsible for people going hungry in the most prosperous nation the world has ever know. The gays are not forcing millions of Syrian refugees to flee.
What I find disappointing is that out of all the sins the Duck Dynasty man listed, the single sin that we none of us have pick up on is "greed". Do we really think that the sin of homosexuality, or, on the flip side, gay rights and marriage equality, is more harmful to our society than greed?
I'm sure many of you have heard about the unwanted, unused military base in Afghanistan that cost $32million.
http://rt.com/usa/afghanistan-pentagon-military-base-leatherneck-904/
Someone is making money from this construction and from other unwanted, unused yet constructed buildings. Why are we yelling about gay people and who can say what and when, when greed is fueling the graft and corruption that is funneling our resources away from our neighbors and into the pockets of who knows who?
We are being distracted by this foolishness. While we post and tweet our indignation about what a man said and his right to say it, our poor are getting poorer, our sick are getting sicker and more people are going hungry.
So perhaps Christians are just not talking about the right things. Maybe their message misses the point. And maybe it is not what they say but, rather, is about the way they say it. Who wants to listen to Fox News yelling about the war on Christmas when we can listen to the Pope gently telling us, AND showing us, that we should be humble, gentle and wise about seeing what the real enemy is?
-
TIME on Duck Dynasty:
Sigh. I can’t believe we have to explain this, over and over, every time a media figure loses a job (or just gets a for-show suspension) over saying something stupid, but: Losing your job for saying something that embarrasses your private employer–even if that is a media outlet–is not a free speech issue. It is not a First Amendment issue. It may be dumb, it may be justified, but it is not a constitutional violation. It is not for Phil Robertson, Alec Baldwin, Martin Bashir, Don Imus, The Dixie Chicks, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else. People changing the channel or not buying your products because of what you said is not “censorship”; nor is losing a business deal for same.
------------------------
In the main, homosexuality is a "mind your own business" issue. A long time ago, the US Supreme Court held that what happens in your bedroom is private.
Demeaning a segment of society on television would have a negative effect on ratings, which is the basis of the broadcast. A&E had every right to fire an employee in the same manner as they would if this were a clerk in a store.
Pushing one's belief's on another is offensive. The so-called Christian Right doesn't seem to be aware of that.
-
HemoDoc;
You wouldn't be promoting conformity in your anti-gay views, would you?
-
HemoDoc;
The story of Moses is in the Old Testament whose origins are not Christian, it is a segment from a Jewish book.
-
Pushing one's belief's on another is offensive. The so-called Christian Right doesn't seem to be aware of that.
Yes, I agree. That is why the first amendment is so important. The religion of secular humanism encompasses a broad segment. Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion in the 1600's. Today, that principle has morphed into freedom FROM religion in many people's eyes. The gospel is freely given, freely received or freely rejected.
However, the remaining Christians in America are overwhelmed by those pushing secular humanism at us attached to the power of the law today.
So, yes, Gerald I agree. Please stop pushing secular humanism down our throats with the power of the law attached.
-
HemoDoc;
The story of Moses is in the Old Testament whose origins are not Christian, it is a segment from a Jewish book.
??? I guess Jesus isn't Jewish either then huh?
Of course it is a Jewish story and Jesus Himself stated, salvation is of the Jews. All of the apostles are Jewish. How far do you want to go with this?
-
I've been mulling over this particular discussion for a while now; I find it very interesting.
I've always said that I believe that people in this country should be free to exercise their first amendment rights but in doing so should be prepared for consequences.
I've always scoffed at the idea that "Christians" (there seems to be a specific definition that escapes me, so in my mind, I equate "Christian" with "evangelical", but I'm unclear on what THAT even means) feel prosecuted or victimized or attacked or marginalized or denied freedom of speech. But I have to confess that when someone describes themselves as "Christian", I find myself rolling my eyes. I started wondering why I react in that manner. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
I started wondering if there is something about the message and/or the messenger(s) that elicit this reaction.
That question rattled more in my brain, keeping me awake this morning despite really wanting to go back to sleep, when I started thinking about the new Pope. Why has there been this outpouring of admiration from so many people, even from those of us who don't label ourselves as "Christian/Evangelical"? What is different about this man and the essence of his message to the world? Why do I not roll my eyes when I hear him speak?
So I went back to the GQ article, reread it and looked through the comments. While I was forming an answer to my above stated questions, I happened to come across this link:
http://www.dwspodcast.com/a-turn-of-events/
I'd be very interested to hear what y'all think of the thoughts expressed here, should you take the time to read it.
I think back to the discussions posted on IHD that focus on faith and religion, and while I do understand that it's not a large or accurate sample, I can't help but notice that these discussions inevitably focus on homosexuality, doom, gloom, accusation, punishment, sin and the right to say stuff. I read very little about joy and hope and the desire to help others and to be Good Samaritans. I read very little that is infused with humility and grace. I read just words and read little about action.
Maybe the Pope is so beloved because he doesn't see homosexuality as the root of all evil. "The gays" are not responsible for people going hungry in the most prosperous nation the world has ever know. The gays are not forcing millions of Syrian refugees to flee.
What I find disappointing is that out of all the sins the Duck Dynasty man listed, the single sin that we none of us have pick up on is "greed". Do we really think that the sin of homosexuality, or, on the flip side, gay rights and marriage equality, is more harmful to our society than greed?
I'm sure many of you have heard about the unwanted, unused military base in Afghanistan that cost $32million.
http://rt.com/usa/afghanistan-pentagon-military-base-leatherneck-904/
Someone is making money from this construction and from other unwanted, unused yet constructed buildings. Why are we yelling about gay people and who can say what and when, when greed is fueling the graft and corruption that is funneling our resources away from our neighbors and into the pockets of who knows who?
We are being distracted by this foolishness. While we post and tweet our indignation about what a man said and his right to say it, our poor are getting poorer, our sick are getting sicker and more people are going hungry.
So perhaps Christians are just not talking about the right things. Maybe their message misses the point. And maybe it is not what they say but, rather, is about the way they say it. Who wants to listen to Fox News yelling about the war on Christmas when we can listen to the Pope gently telling us, AND showing us, that we should be humble, gentle and wise about seeing what the real enemy is?
I am sorry you feel that way about Christians. Your experience has not been my experience. But I support your right to freely express and speak your views no matter how distasteful they are to Christians.
-
Dear MM, FYI, Phil did mention greed in his statement. In case you missed it, here is one quote showing that:
Then he paraphrased Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Not sure what that makes of your long diatribe against Christians, but greed, avarice, the love of money are all part of what the Bible teaches about. Not sure what Bible you have been reading.
-
HemoDoc;
First, there is no empirical evidence that “Jesus” ever lived. He wrote nothing, he carved no message and he wasn’t a factor until 66 years after the supposed date of his death. He is no more real than the burning bush with a voice or manna from heaven.
Next, I made the point, which you seem to have avoided, that the Old and New Testaments portray a very different God. This is attributable to the fact that the Old Testament came from Jewish sources and their mindset, and the New Testament came from lesson plans for Christian preachers (Apostles) although there is no evidence that any apostle ever wrote anything.
Next, I do not care if you preach your religion in a venue that expects you to do so. Here, there is a captive audience.
Next, rebuttals to your argument do not mean I am, or anyone else is spreading the message of secular humanism. You clearly resent secular thinking, which makes this your problem, not mine.
Next, the majority of our Founding Fathers were Deists. They shunned organized religion and wrote a Constitution that says as much.
Lastly, I believe that humans determine their own destiny, live by their own wits, and set their own goals. We are here via evolution and we do not have all of the answers. My personal focus is not to address all of those unanswered questions but to help those who need help, improve the human condition by working in the system and readjusting resources for the benefit of those who have a need. In this I declare a successful life, well spent. The politics from the right fought me through my entire career. But 5,000 people living in Southside Oroville would elect me mayor if they were a city. The philosophy I adopted is not that different from Pope Francis. But “Christians” like you are a dime a dozen and extremely non-productive with regards to the principles they preach. Yep, I was a hippy in the sixties, I carried a sign, I was a Student Body President during that time and I found corruption among school administrators. What I learned then was applied to the work in my career. Tell me, what the hell have you done to help the poor, needy and the sick? Oppose Obamacare, Medicaid, kill government? What I have is not religion, it is a desire to end suffering, something Christians ought to learn and practice. I take responsibility, your so-called Tea Party doesn’t and neither do you.
That’s my rant for the day.
Gerald Lively
-
I am sorry you feel that way about Christians. Your experience has not been my experience. But I support your right to freely express and speak your views no matter how distasteful they are to Christians.
Well you see, that's just it. I'm sorry I feel this way about "Christians", too, and I don't like feeling this way. And that's why I am examining my prejudices. I don't feel this way about the Pope. Why don't I feel this way about the Pope? Could it be that the Pope is focusing on things that matter while the rest of us rant and rave about gays?
And yes, Duck Dynasty dad DID mention greed, but only in passing. He spoke more about homosexuals and vaginas and anuses in the GQ article more than he spoke about greed. Listen to the debate surrounding this article, and from all sides all you hear is "first amendment" and "homosexual agenda".
Did you bother reading the link I posted? I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, usually, but I'm beginning to think that there are powers in this country that are trying to distract us from our nation's real problems. Do you really think that the power and money brokers, the 1%, really care about gay people and abortion and first amendment rights for all? These are the people who are trying to make us believe that money equals speech because it suits their agenda. So while the rest of us are screeching about attacks on our first amendment rights, the people who are TRULY taking those rights away from us are hiding in the shadows and laughing at us while we debate such earth-shattering issues as Duck Dynasty (if they are so offended, why don't they just leave A&E? Why are they trying to negotiate with the network? I truly hope that greed is not somewhere there in the mix.) Why are we not talking about the greedy, the avaricious and the swindlers? They are far more prevalent and far more insidious. It is THEIR agenda Mr. Robertson should be railing against. He certainly does have the right to say what he wishes, but I just wish he would say something more valuable. He has an audience of 14 million people, and he wastes his words in this way? Why doesn't he USE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS and REALLY say something?
-
HemoDoc;
First, there is no empirical evidence that “Jesus” ever lived. He wrote nothing, he carved no message and he wasn’t a factor until 66 years after the supposed date of his death. He is no more real than the burning bush with a voice or manna from heaven.
Next, I made the point, which you seem to have avoided, that the Old and New Testaments portray a very different God. This is attributable to the fact that the Old Testament came from Jewish sources and their mindset, and the New Testament came from lesson plans for Christian preachers (Apostles) although there is no evidence that any apostle ever wrote anything.
Next, I do not care if you preach your religion in a venue that expects you to do so. Here, there is a captive audience.
Next, rebuttals to your argument do not mean I am, or anyone else is spreading the message of secular humanism. You clearly resent secular thinking, which makes this your problem, not mine.
Next, the majority of our Founding Fathers were Deists. They shunned organized religion and wrote a Constitution that says as much.
Lastly, I believe that humans determine their own destiny, live by their own wits, and set their own goals. We are here via evolution and we do not have all of the answers. My personal focus is not to address all of those unanswered questions but to help those who need help, improve the human condition by working in the system and readjusting resources for the benefit of those who have a need. In this I declare a successful life, well spent. The politics from the right fought me through my entire career. But 5,000 people living in Southside Oroville would elect me mayor if they were a city. The philosophy I adopted is not that different from Pope Francis. But “Christians” like you are a dime a dozen and extremely non-productive with regards to the principles they preach. Yep, I was a hippy in the sixties, I carried a sign, I was a Student Body President during that time and I found corruption among school administrators. What I learned then was applied to the work in my career. Tell me, what the hell have you done to help the poor, needy and the sick? Oppose Obamacare, Medicaid, kill government? What I have is not religion, it is a desire to end suffering, something Christians ought to learn and practice. I take responsibility, your so-called Tea Party doesn’t and neither do you.
That’s my rant for the day.
Gerald Lively
Dear Gerald, believe as you wish. I will just strongly disagree with your position. Lastly, sorry, but I do not answer to you about what I have or have not done thank you. Since you have already judged me as extremely nonproductive for the principles I preach, I will leave you to your own opinion. Thank you again for that as well.
Have a great day Gerald.
Perhaps one day, folks on IHD will actually debate issues instead of standing on personal attacks, but I won't hold my breath.
-
I am sorry you feel that way about Christians. Your experience has not been my experience. But I support your right to freely express and speak your views no matter how distasteful they are to Christians.
Well you see, that's just it. I'm sorry I feel this way about "Christians", too, and I don't like feeling this way. And that's why I am examining my prejudices. I don't feel this way about the Pope. Why don't I feel this way about the Pope? Could it be that the Pope is focusing on things that matter while the rest of us rant and rave about gays?
And yes, Duck Dynasty dad DID mention greed, but only in passing. He spoke more about homosexuals and vaginas and anuses in the GQ article more than he spoke about greed. Listen to the debate surrounding this article, and from all sides all you hear is "first amendment" and "homosexual agenda".
Did you bother reading the link I posted? I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, usually, but I'm beginning to think that there are powers in this country that are trying to distract us from our nation's real problems. Do you really think that the power and money brokers, the 1%, really care about gay people and abortion and first amendment rights for all? These are the people who are trying to make us believe that money equals speech because it suits their agenda. So while the rest of us are screeching about attacks on our first amendment rights, the people who are TRULY taking those rights away from us are hiding in the shadows and laughing at us while we debate such earth-shattering issues as Duck Dynasty (if they are so offended, why don't they just leave A&E? Why are they trying to negotiate with the network? I truly hope that greed is not somewhere there in the mix.) Why are we not talking about the greedy, the avaricious and the swindlers? They are far more prevalent and far more insidious. It is THEIR agenda Mr. Robertson should be railing against. He certainly does have the right to say what he wishes, but I just wish he would say something more valuable. He has an audience of 14 million people, and he wastes his words in this way? Why doesn't he USE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS and REALLY say something?
1) Yes, I did read the other post and other than a bit more crude graphic talk, all Phil did was correctly paraphrase the Bible on who will not enter in the kingdom of Heaven. If you are going to quote the Bible in public, expect people to not like it one bit. However, is that justification for firing a person from a job? If so, then it will have a chilling effect on the first amendment rights of free speech for Christians which again is why I posted the topic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking your mind and quoting the Bible. Soft pedaling the gospel does no one any good. Better to hear the truth now than hearing it facing God on judgement day.
2) We are talking about this because EVERYONE is talking about across this nation in the last few days. If you wish to discuss those other issues, please feel free to open a new thread.
3) Yes, I have no doubt that there are conspiracies at very high levels and the 1% are using the entire gay rights issue for their own agenda. I agree, they probably care little about the gay rights issue personally, but it is a very powerful tool to diffuse the political power of the religious right in this nation. I believe it goes further as you alluded to. If you wish to discuss that in detail, once again, it would be a good topic to discuss by itself.
Today, another state declared bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. We are soon coming to the final battle of this issue when it will be applied to the church. That day is coming quite soon. Where will the issue of first amendment religious freedom enter into that aspect of this controversy? I believe I already know the answer to that as well. Just as in Europe and Canada, gay rights will trump religious freedom. Now, that brings us back over 400 years ago in our history. That was the fundamental reason why the Pilgrims fled from Europe in the first place.
So, despite all the accusations of Christians crying wolf, it is a very real issue that actually has more to say about our society for non-Christians than for Christians. I know and understand my fate in this world and the blessings that Lord has for us at hand. But what of those who will live in a post-Christian society where religious freedom is no more? That day is coming soon and as far as I am concerned, so be it. I have already made my peace with God so whatever tomorrow brings, I am at peace with it.
-
Yes, I would like to discuss point 3 if you care to start a thread. My suspicion is that it's not only the political power of the religious right that is being thwarted by these shadowy characters but, rather, the political power of anyone and everyone outside of their realm. But I can provide no proof or links, so I probably wouldn't be able to offer much to the discussion. Still, I'd be interested in what you and other IHDers have to say on the subject.
-
See how your are? You want to post your opinion and/or beliefs, yet when others answer, you ignore them. I offered facts and you dismissed the post. Your previous declaration that the Tea Party has no organization yet takes many political actions, seems to have grown into your personality; neither they or you take responsibility. Words have consequences.
Try debating the issues instead of resorting to one-way communication.
-
Maybe he doesn't want to comment. Silence is better than picking a fight. Then Hemodoc gets called out for personal attacks. I agree... if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything. It is perfectally legal to ignore a comment. This is not a debate contest. It is people airing their views. You can list your personal views and if someone comes back with nothing that interests you ignore it.
Just my :twocents;
-
Hemodoc, you said:
I don't agree with what he stated about black people, but I do support his right to state his views publicly. People are free to criticize him as well. However, for the average person, the threat of losing their job is all it takes to silence people and put fear into their hearts about speaking their mind in public. So, yes, the article is quite wrong. This type of coercive power is enough to silence first amendment freedoms.
This is absolutely correct. For over 35 years I have had to keep my "religious" views to myself for fear of losing my business. The knife cuts both ways. BUT, I do not consider it an abridgment of my first amendment rights. It is a reflection of society. I have the right to state my views. I choose not to do so for practical reasons. I do look forward to the day that I no longer need to keep silent for fear of losing my business. I imagine people will be quite surprised to learn that the good person they have admired and turned to for advice on life and living is an atheist.
-
See how your are? You want to post your opinion and/or beliefs, yet when others answer, you ignore them. I offered facts and you dismissed the post. Your previous declaration that the Tea Party has no organization yet takes many political actions, seems to have grown into your personality; neither they or you take responsibility. Words have consequences.
Try debating the issues instead of resorting to one-way communication.
Gerald, am I going to convince you of my views if I were to go into long diatribe on the history of the Bible, the historical Jesus and the God of the OT and the NT are the same God, just different dispensations of justice and grace and the Christian foundation of America which goes far beyond a few politicians in the late 1700's? Secular Humanism is a belief system and in such is a form of religion yet it is a religion solidified by the rule of law. Little by little, the first amendment freedoms slip away. That is not only a danger to Christians but all in this nation.
If you wish to debate those off topic issues start a new thread. The topic we are discussing here is first amendment rights.
-
Interesting! Rerun says this is not a debate and I thought it was. As I said earlier, words have consequences. So does failure to respond. I intend to ignore your posts since it is fruitless to expect explanations from you.
-
Dear Moosemom, looks like Gerald took his ball and went home so this will be to you for now. Keeping to the issue of first amendment rights, a couple of interesting commentaries point out what the whole Duck Dynasty controversy is all about.
A nation founded by pilgrims who came here to worship the God of the Bible freely without interference and persecution from ruling elites and those opposed to Christianity's influence on the culture, has now come to the proverbial fork in the road. After years of attempting to balance traditional Americana with political correctness, those pushing the new "my way or the highway" definition of "tolerance" have decided accommodating our differences of opinion is defeat. . .
Back to that proverbial fork in the road. One sign says "liberty." The other sign says "political correctness." Every individual American and every American institution will have to choose one or the other. We can no longer have both, and the truth is we really never could. It was always going to end this way, we just didn't want to believe it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-bible-religion-palin-robertson-column/4124181/
-
Dear Moosemom,
Here is another article that spells out the concrete loss of income vs. silencing religious views. In the land of religious freedom, it appears that we are returning to state sanctioned religious intolerance.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/20/penalizing-hold-biblical-views-marriage/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Now, all of this is sadly expected as a Christian. Bible prophecy spoke of this a long time ago that the days of the end will be as the days of Lot. Lot was persecuted by the entire town for his beliefs. The entire Duck Dynasty controversy follows on the heals of Chick Fil A and so many other businesses simply stating publicly their continued belief in traditional marriage. As more and more states declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, churches will not be exempt soon enough. That is the entire issue of concern for where these things are headed.
-
Interesting! Rerun says this is not a debate and I thought it was. As I said earlier, words have consequences. So does failure to respond. I intend to ignore your posts since it is fruitless to expect explanations from you.
PTL :cheer:
-
Yes Gerald, it looks like there are consequences to suppressing the right for fundamental Christians publicly expressing their beliefs. Cracker Barrel Restaurants pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise after Phil was suspended. After a "swift" and vocal response against this action, Cracker Barrel reversed it's decision and apologized which is quite remarkable in today's politically correct culture.
“We were flat out wrong."
That’s the message Cracker Barrel is sending to enraged customers after the restaurant chain removed Duck Dynasty items from its stores over fears it might offend people.
“Our intent was to avoid offending but that’s just what we’ve done,” Cracker Barrel said in a statement posted on its Facebook page. “You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-screwed-up-big-time/
When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.
You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.
We listened.
Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.
And, we apologize for offending you.
We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.
We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.
https://www.facebook.com/CrackerBarrel
-
And all this time I thought Duck Dynasty was about Donald Duck and his family history.
:beer1; :beer1; :beer1;
-
Hi, Hemodoc! Apologies for not having gotten back to you sooner, but I seem to have spend the last three days shoveling snow. Ugh.
I don't have a lot of time as it is late and the next few days will be filled with Christmas preparations, but I have been thinking about this issue and wanted to offer a few of my thoughts because if I don't, they will stay inside my brain and will not let me sleep.
One, Cracker Barrel must not know who their customers are. I was frankly shocked that they took down all of their Duck Dynasty merchandise. As usual, money talks. Cracker Barrel will replace the DD merchandise, their customers will be appeased and CB will continue to make money. I've been to countless Cracker Barrels, and while I know this is a sweeping generality, I personally have never seen non-white customers. (I hope CB customers have health insurance because whenever they CB describes the items on their menus, they use terms like "home cooking" or "southern cooking" which is code for "seasoning with salt pork, ham hocks or bacon drippings. It's a cardiac infarction just waiting to happen! LOL!)
Phil Robertson will not lose his job. A&E and Phil Robertson have played everyone. A&E conveniently "suspended" Mr. Robertson despite the fact that the upcoming season has already been taped and will begin showing in January. Ratings will be even higher, more merchandise will be sold, and Phil will return if he wants. If he decides not to return, he will still be a rich man. I don't think we should pity him.
I regularly read the online editions of various British broadsheets, and I found this fascinating link to a story in The Telegraph that looks at this whole idea of how the practice of religious liberty can clash with other societal norms seen within the majority community, and I couldn't help be reminded of some of the stories to which you have provided links.
There is a vernerable department store in the UK called Marks and Spencers. Now, keep in mind that the UK is probably the most multicultural place on earth, particularly East London, so you can imagine the cultural and religious clashes that can ensue. It seems that M&S have decided to allow their Muslim employees to refrain from handling and selling alcholol and pork to customer, instead leading said customers to sales people who do not mind selling these goods. The Muslim employees say that that their religious liberties are being trampled upon because they were being forced to handle products that are taboo in their religion and culture. Here is a link to the story; you may find the comments to be of interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html
(Tesco's and Sainsbury's are two nationwide grocery chains.)
I'd be very interested to hear your comments on this story. If you went into a grocery story and bought some nice pork chops to accompany a zingy Rioja but were asked to go to another checkout line because the checkout person was Muslim and felt like s/he couldn't handle these products in good faith because she valued her religious liberty, would you be OK with that?
Lastly, I can't help draw parallels between the persecution Christians must now be feeling with that felt by negroes, gays and other minorities in the past. I worry that since "national security" became the all-emcompassing rationalization to invade our privacy, "religious liberty and freedom" is in real danger of becoming code for smug intolerance. We all want to be secure, so we are duped into giving up privacy and freedom so that some shadowy corporations will make even bigger bucks. I fear that crying "religious liberty" will make people think they can say anything they want, even if what they say is cruel and unkind. Would Jesus really have looked askance and a humble baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? Could not the baker show some kindness to the couple and then ask God for forgiveness? I'm sure God would have seen inside the baker's heart and known that he was a good man and would have forgiven him if he had repented. Let God do the judging. He has bigger shoulders and much more time.
The two dangers to the religious right are the profit motive and the democratic process.
Cracker Barrel just want to make money and don't want to offend their best customers. If CB had any backbone at all, they would have stuck to their original plan. But the fear of losing money/profit made them do a 180.
While I understand your concern that "The Government" is stealing your right to religious liberty and free speech, remember that you and I ARE the government. Through the democratic process, people are able to form policies they believe will be for the greater good and will benefit their state. States' Rights and all that. If Colorado refuses to allow a bakery to refuse selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, it's because the people of that state have democratically decided that this is the road down which they want their state to travel and will not tolerate discrimination, even if it is being sold as an infringement upon religious liberty.
I'm not entirely sure why you feel that churches will soon be forced to perform gay marriages against their will. Perhaps you can explain this further.
I know there is a lot in your posts I have not yet been able to closely examine, and I'll get to those sometime later.
Again, I worry that our puppet strings are being pulled by those really in power, that we are being manipulated into these sorts of discussion while most of us are being distracted by the few people who are content to rob us blind. I worry that we are concerned about the wrong things. I worry that there is a cabal who is chortling over how easy it is to make us look over there while they steal our power and our money whilst we are looking in the opposite direction.
Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and your wife. I hope you get to spend some time with your precious grandpunkin.
-
Dear MM,
Last first. Yes, I absolutely believe there are people fostering the polarization of America FOR THEIR purposes. Yes, I believe that there are people pulling the strings. I believe it is their desire to prevent real dialogue, only shouting matches and increased anger and frustration between opposing viewpoints. That is one of the rules for radicals.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
We have always had divergent ideas on political issues, but only of recent times here in the US anyway have we been unable to discuss pragmatic solutions to these diverse problems.
I believe the "End game" is control over the churches. The foundation of this is coming to fruition in the state cases of note recently. I will throw it back up to the level of your last statement. I believe that there are people telegraphing openly their intentions. We have all I would imagine heard of the The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would put forth many of the recent state judgements on gay marriage in a Federal mandate. That does have great implications for churches since MOST American churches are incorporated. I disagree with incorporating a church since that puts its creation as a state created entity under control by the state. I don't believe churches should be founded legally by the state which means they have given up their first amendment protections by becoming a state corporation subject to all the laws of that state. In any case, all corporations must adhere to all state laws including those on non-discrimination.
If ENDA passes which it nearly did recently, then American churches would be under increased scrutiny of the Feds to enact all non-discrimination laws including those on gay marriage and employment in ministry positions. If that includes gay marriage as a civil right, yes, that is where it is headed. Europe and Canada placed restrictions through hate speech legislation against preaching scripture that prohibits homosexuality. It appears Canada recently backed off on this a bit, but people have been prosecuted in Canada and Europe over these laws.
I believe that ENDA may actually broadcast their intentions openly, once again this is speculation on my part but the coincidences are too evident when you read it as The END Act. Sorry, am I reading too much into that? Perhaps, but ENDA will have a chilling effect on American churches if passed which becomes more likely every year. I can't separate the acronym from it's potential implications.
Yes, A&E and the Ducks will profit from this controversy. Have they duped us all? Perhaps but that is not the testimony of the Duck folks. Are there so called Christians who make merchandise of unsuspecting people? Yes, unfortunately. Is this such a case? I don't think so, but time may tell.
I also saw the religious tolerance story in England which is perhaps where religious tolerance should be even though I am bothered by the Islamization of Europe that is rampant today supplanting traditional European cultures by in part taking advantage of marginalized ethnic immigrants in these nations. They noted that Christians were granted days off on Sunday, Jews on Saturday and Muslims on Friday which should be recognized for people of religious beliefs. The issue I would worry about is placing Sharia law at the level of civil and common law precedents in England especially since that is already happening there. Should the customers be hindered and inconvenienced? No, I believe that is problematic but people can vote with their pocketbooks and not get into the line of someone known to be muslim, but I am not sure that this will help their cause in the long run by engendering more bigotry against them due to the inconvenience it causes. Should they have the right to refuse to handle liquor and pork? Yes. Should a restaurant in San francisco close after Muslims complained of the smell of bacon served near residential areas? No, but that is what has happened in England as well. So why do we see the Democrats bending over backwards to accommodate Islamic religious convictions yet opposing the expression of Christianity? I don't get the alliance myself, but it is there and is that what tolerance is all about?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bacon-bacon-bacon-restaurant-smells-like-bacon/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322435/Cafe-owner-ordered-remove-extractor-fan-case-smell-frying-bacon-offends-passing-Muslims.html
Do we take into consideration the goals of Islam which does call for infidels to submit to sharia law such as the smell of bacon near homes? Should their religious goals be allowed to trample the rights of other people who are not Islamic? No. Should the bakers in Oregon and Colorado have to bake the cake for the gay couples who petitioned the courts? No. Will that engender hatred against Christians? Yes, just as it will denying sales of pork and liquor in England, but yes, I believe they should have the right to refuse service if it compromises their beliefs. Why is it here in America that is bending over backwards as Europe and other nations do that we see toleration of Islamic religious preferences yet Christians are forced to adhere to the standards of secular humanism?
There is a clear dichotomy between how requests of religious liberty for Muslims and Christians are handled here in the US and in Europe. So, should Muslims have to serve pork? No. Should Christians have to bake cakes for homosexual weddings? No, but that is NOT what the courts now say in at least two states very recently. Is that religious tolerance? I don't think so. Gay rights will soon supplant first amendment religious protections, but that applied selectively against Christianity but not so for Muslims. That is what is shaping up in Europe and to a smaller extent here in the US supported in large part by an alliance with muslims and democrats making for strange bedfellows for sure.
The goals of islam and Christianity are quite divergent and not comparable. Jesus says if people reject the gospel to move on and let them be. That is not what the Koran states. A theocracy is not the goal of evangelical Christianity. Free expression of our faith as provided by the first amendment is what is expected and desired.
Lastly, would Jesus condone homosexuality? No. Is the recent tolerance movement tolerant of Christianity? It appears more and more that the answer to that is no. Is that surprising to me? No, that is the expected turn of events since the Lord stated it would be as the days of Lot. Look what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah attempted to do to him for sitting at the city gate judging them. I believe that is where this is all headed.