Religious Politics - Christian antagonists

[GloriaPatri]

Well, it could be construed as an aspect of the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause, and since it is provided to some people a matter covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the Consitution. Of course, I concede that is a matter of interpretation (and not a popular one for obvious reasons). But the Constitution hypothetically at least could include a protected right to marriage.

Marriage itself is a product of state law, BTW. What consitutes legal marriage is defined differently for each state by reference to statutes and even (in some states) the "common law."

Yes, I know.

 

[Green Gaia]

Like the right to get married? I don't recall marriage being a constitutional right. No one has taken any of your rights away. While I agree that gays should be afforded the same recognition under the law - it's a bit of a stretch to call it a right.

I believe civil marriage is a civil right.

The state of Virginia is trying to prohibit legal recognition of domestic partnerships or any other legal arrangements, such as medical decisions, guardianship of children and ownership and transfer of property, for all unmarried partners regardless of sexual orientation.

This threat is very real to many of us. Just because it doesn't directly you doesn't mean it's not happening and doesn't hurt other people.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I believe civil marriage is a civil right.

The state of Virginia is trying to prohibit legal recognition of domestic partnerships or any other legal arrangements, such as medical decisions, guardianship of children and ownership and transfer of property, for all unmarried partners regardless of sexual orientation.

This threat is very real to many of us. Just because it doesn't directly you doesn't mean it's not happening and doesn't hurt other people.

I agree that that is wrong. Take that up with your state legislature.

Anyway, these issues are dealt with mainly at the state level. If the federal government was doing it you could allude to Nazi Germany, but they aren't.

 

[robtex]

P.S. it is probably a good thing that I have to go to work now and I was mandated to take "anger management" treatment while incarcerated or else I'd probably get myself kicked out of here. I'll answer the other posts ASAP.

Sincerely,
James/SoliDeoGloria

James if your mad don't post. It is a forum. Nothing more nothing less. Sorry I upset you. I am not gonna address your post if I think it is gonna anger you. I have a heart of no ill-will and anatogization isnt' my cup of tea. Complacency on what I view as human rights issue isn't my cup of tea either hence my passion for it in debate. I abhor what the communists did/do in china and the USSR but living in the USA the largest groups opposed to human rights and indivdual freedoms happen to be Christians.

As a footnote, a communist is a policital position as opposed to an atheistic one. One could subscribe to communism and be an atheist or a God-fearing indivdual without impacting the philosophy behind communism at all.

 

[Pah]

I'm sorry, but Christina Nationalism is not pervasive in our government. I know you're going to say "but George Bush is a right wing Christian!" You can look to the many military Junta's that used to rule South America as examples of Christian Nationalist governments.

A military junta equated to Christianity? You seem to be good at Goggle. I suggest you use it, discover what your ignorance hides, and then discern the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.C.U.M._Manifesto

The S.C.U.M Manifesto advocates the extermination of males. Using your logic I should say "feminists are all nazi's and want to kill guys for no reason" just because a few crazy ones want to.[/COLOR]

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

Men who are rational, however, won't kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.

It is not extermination. It will be denial by women of sexual privilege that eliminates the male from the species. Humanity would then join the group of animals that live perfectly well without a male.

And unfortunetly for you, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. But I would read if I were you just to be sure that the shoe it describes doen't fit.

Like the right to get married? I don't recall marriage being a constitutional right. No one has taken any of your rights away. While I agree that gays should be afforded the same recognition under the law - it's a bit of a stretch to call it a right.

The right to get married was include in constitutional law as a fundamental right by Loving v Virginia.

 

[GloriaPatri]

A military junta equated to Christianity? You seem to be good at Goggle. I suggest you use it, discover what your ignorance hides, and then discern the difference.

Yes, in Argentina. I suggest you read about. And please refrain from ad hominem attacks - it just makes you look ignorant.

It seems just some males. And unfortunetly for you, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. But I would read if I were you just to be sure that the shoe it describes doen't fit.

I know it has nothing to do with homosexuality. I was just using it as an example to point out your fallacious argument.

The right to get married was include in constitutional law as a fundemental right by Loving v Virginia.

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. You know, the one that apply's to the whole country.

 

[dawny0826]

Yes, i think so.

I personally believe certain things, like ethics, are black and white. Either you're doing the right thing, or you're not.

Suppressing a person's human rights, the right to live their life as they wish (so long as it harms no-one else) and to live a happy life are, in my mind, evil and stem from hate.

To me, this boils down to good Christians verses bad Christians.

Thank you. This is EXACTLY as I feel.

 

[dawny0826]

All we non-christians are asking is that the Christians assume some responsiblity for the tresspasses made against humanity in their Lord's name.

I'm only held accountable for my own actions, Rob.

As a Christian...I owe you no explanation for what others do in the Lord's name, especially if their beliefs and actions do NOT align with God and His Word.

You're asking "compassionate" Christians to be held accountable for the actions of those that they TOO might not agree with.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I'm only held accountable for my own actions, Rob.

As a Christian...I owe you no explanation for what others do in the Lord's name, especially if their beliefs and actions do NOT align with God and His Word.

You're asking "compassionate" Christians to be held accountable for the actions of those that they TOO might not agree with.

Agreed. Stalin was an atheist and I never ask an atheist to "assume some responsiblity for the tresspasses made against humanity" in atheism's name.

 

[Random]

This question of good Christian vs. bad Christian obviously doesn't affect me anymore since I am of my own religious persuasion now, but I will say it's an over-simplification to merely present the division in terms of Liberal/good vs. Right/bad, as most have done here.

Men of power desire conformity above all else, so yes, Pat Buchanon and others of his ilk would naturally love a White Chrisitan-Right America. But there's no going back to that now, thankfully, as the information age makes anyone with a wikipedia potentially a dissenting voice.

I am a celibate heterosexual, so homosexuality is largely anomalous to me and I believe it to be proper and natural for a man and woman to unite in body and spirit as they were made for each other. But I can accept that, in many ways, Love is Love: whether between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Civil marriage sounds about right for gays, though how such a union would survive the admitedly not insurmounatable problem of raising balanced children in a same-sex environment and what effect this would have on society as a whole in the long-term remains to be seen.

Pah does seem overly fond of picking up the latest thread of action in religious politics from Atheist websites (which are unfairly biased) and putting it on here, but that's okay by me. I can handle Atheists any old day of the week...

 

[Ody]

You know Pah, I have noticed this trend from you to exploit extremes of "Christian" theocracists and trying to make it look like all Christians are this way.

I have never got this from what I have read posted by Pah.

 

[Booko]

The difference is no one is 'coming' for gays, communists, Jews, ethnic minorities, the mentally disabled, or trade unionists like in Nazi Germany.

True, true...our American traditions do die hard (thankfully). No one is coming, in any organized fashion, to round up gays and send them to gas chambers.

They only have to fear losing their jobs and children.

No big deal, eh?

 

[lamplighter]

THE BIGGEST problem for the right of civil union for gays is people using religious dogma to dictate who has the right to CIVIL union not RELIGIOUS union, which is uncostitutional to gays because it directly violates there right to freedom of and from religion. If a religious organization refuses to recgonize a homosexual union that is that religion's right. If you think there going to hell well thats how YOU feel not THEM and I fail to see how there union would send you to hell if you believe such anyway.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*winces as she walks in to thread* Oh, dear heavens.

 

[Quiddity]

True, true...our American traditions do die hard (thankfully). No one is coming, in any organized fashion, to round up gays and send them to gas chambers.

They only have to fear losing their jobs and children.

No big deal, eh?

I don't think he was turning his cheek to this. See post#23

 

[gnomon]

From an article by Austin Cline, Would Pat Buchanan Prefer a White, Christian America?

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258113.htm?nl=1

Don't we have the same circumstances in the fight for/against same-sex marriage?

So what's your point. I deduce it is that just because someone follows a certain religion doesn't mean that you can tell what their political position will be? What an obvious conclusion.

Look on the brightside though. It seems the bad Christians lost and the good Christians, along with many other likeminded people who worked with them won out in the end.

So cheer up fellah.

 

[robtex]

I'm only held accountable for my own actions, Rob.

As a Christian...I owe you no explanation for what others do in the Lord's name, especially if their beliefs and actions do NOT align with God and His Word.

You're asking "compassionate" Christians to be held accountable for the actions of those that they TOO might not agree with.

Dawn maybe I am not articulating myself well on this. Before I start I want to state I have no idea if you are the others are active in politics or not and by this assumption I am making no personal judgements however I am working on generalization of what I have observed.

I vote, I organize political actions and I am vocal on issues I am passionate about. For instance with gay marriage I taught a number of gay people at my part-time job (in a dept store) about gay political issues, who the players are and how to read find various polls. I helped a gay man who is politically active write a letter to a church that openly promoted the texas gay marriage ban. I am an active partipant on this and some other issues as opposed to a passive observer.

The thing I cannot do is have much influence on the Christian community. I am an outsider. I have christian friends, as a matter of fact all the guys I practice martial arts with are christians, and such but politically I am an outsider. I non-believer. I accept this. But in terms of practicality I realize Christians who are pro civil and indivdual rights are in a much better position than I to be effective. That and I look at it like this:

Say I work for texas ABC do-nothing company. I am white (which I am in real life) and don't really notice but so are all the other employees. Over time I find out the reason everyone is white is the company heads are white supremests. Now I do pretty well for this company in sales and am making them some money but I realize that they take some of this profit and support the KKK and other organizaitions I have issue with. I would feel responsible for this due to my making money for them and would find the neccissity to excuse myself upon discovering this. As a matter of fact I have turned down an interview offer on ethics in the last year.

In the same way if I belonged to an organization that condenes freedom of speech and the group for whatever reason decided that pedophlia cartoons should be protected under their ideas. If I stayed with the group and didn't say anything I would feel in my mind that I silently condoned the action by not voicing dissent.

Silent condoning is a big problem I have with Christianity. I used really far-fetched examples to illustrate the ideas but the theme I hope is coming through. For the Christians being complacent, by being silent condoners, by not contesting issues they feel strongly about in opposition to their organizations are in congruence with the issue by their non-objection.

Again, I don't know any of the posters on this thread in person and don't know if this applies to you or not but I do know it applies to a really really large portion of the population in Texas.

I don't see it as an issue of fair or unfair but rather that as Christians, who live amoung Christians you are not afforded the luxury of a neutral position on human rights issues that your religon pursues at large. By being a member of team Jesus you are in the game irrgardless if you want to be or not, and if you are being silent when an issue comes across you are strongly against you are condoning it by not contesting it.

 

[Green Gaia]

I agree that that is wrong. Take that up with your state legislature.

We are. But we need the help of fairminded Christians like yourself to educate voters to vote this unjust law down. Because we are not being listened to.

Anyway, these issues are dealt with mainly at the state level. If the federal government was doing it you could allude to Nazi Germany, but they aren't.

Ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act? Or the Federal Marriage Amendment? It's exactly the same thing, though not as broad as the Virginia amendment. However, it's still wrong.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm only held accountable for my own actions, Rob.

As a Christian...I owe you no explanation for what others do in the Lord's name, especially if their beliefs and actions do NOT align with God and His Word.

You're asking "compassionate" Christians to be held accountable for the actions of those that they TOO might not agree with.

Let me ask you then, Dawny. What can I do to make people care enough to do something about others are being hurt? I mean, if people just don't care that we are being hurt in the name of religious zeal, then I wish they would just say so. At least then I would know where they stood. What I don't understand is those who say, "oh that's horrible, but it's not my problem," and therefore don't do anyting about it. Really, I want to know what I need to do to make them care enough to stop the hurt of others in the name of some people's religious beliefs. Please tell me.

 

[GloriaPatri]

We are. But we need the help of fairminded Christians like yourself to educate voters to vote this unjust law down. Because we are not being listened to.

I'm sorry to here that.

Ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act? Or the Federal Marriage Amendment? It's exactly the same thing, though not as broad as the Virginia amendment. However, it's still wrong.

Which were all struck down if you recall.