First Amendment Under Attack

[Jean]

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.

[justme15]

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.

[Jean]

Perhaps it does.

[Simon Dog]

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.

[Jean]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Simon Dog]

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.

[MooseMom]

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!

[Hemodoc]

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."

[willowtreewren]

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)

[YLGuy]

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]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[willowtreewren]

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

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

[willowtreewren]

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

[Hemodoc]

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.

[willowtreewren]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[willowtreewren]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[rocker]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[willowtreewren]

 

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.