Evangelicals Call for Civic Action [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

eugene40

03-09-2005, 01:12 PM

This one is kind of... interesting (or scary, or even great, depending). A full convention is taking place today in Washington for representitives of the 30-40 million Evangelicals in the U.S. (The National Association of Evangelicals, strangely enough).

The NAE is releasing a 'statement of principles' (link below). I recommend reading all 12 pages... it is very well-written, honestly.

http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf

It more or less explains why Christians have a duty to act in politics, lays out a number of initiatives (can you imagine - 'abortion' is on the list! :eek: ), and provides more than a few Bible quotes to prove their point.

-JC

Why can't these people understand that not everyone in this country is a christian. And that their "values" are not everyones values. Why must they insist in trying to ram their beliefs down everyones throats? Tell them to shut up go back in their churches and mind their business... If we want psycho religious nuts telling us things that aren't really true. We will tune in to the next presidential speech.

serenity

03-09-2005, 01:16 PM

If we want psycho religious nuts telling us things that aren't really true. We will tune in to the next presidential speech.

:)

I'm with you. The more these people get politically involved, the worse things get.

eugene40

03-09-2005, 01:28 PM

:)

I'm with you. The more these people get politically involved, the worse things get.

Personally I think they need to go to Israel.... I mean there is no significant religious meaning nor history in our little continent here... That is holy land,,, why can't they go bug them... But knowing Israel if they saw this happening they would probably be smart and close their borders.
Too bad we can't just ignore them and then they go away. Then they start poking you in the back and tapping their bible on your shoulder. I wonder what would it take for them to knock it off..... Maybe someone should go on tv and just tell them their little end of days is going to happen in a few years and they should run to their churches and pray and let us heathens alone... ahh that would be nice :D

serenity

03-09-2005, 01:33 PM

Personally I think they need to go to Israel.... I mean there is no significant religious meaning nor history in our little continent here...

Unless you're a Mormon (I think...don't know much about them, really).

Maybe someone should go on tv and just tell them their little end of days is going to happen in a few years and they should run to their churches and pray and let us heathens alone... ahh that would be nice

Yeah, get ready for End Times, Jesus is coming and he is p**sed!

Aren't you an officer of the law, Eugene? Maybe you could , you know, arrest them for public indecency, or something. :) :)

Churlant

03-09-2005, 02:21 PM

Please see Part I of my sig line for the only response needed ;)

-JC

Albert

03-09-2005, 02:49 PM

To be fair, if this group acted on all of the agenda, and did not fall into the few they seem associated with (abortion, same sex marriage) it would seem quite progressive in comparison to our current administration. If I were in charge of the Democratic Party (and God knows I’m not (pardon the back sided pun)) I would be offering a compromise on abortion and pushing hard for civil unions. If the Democrats can get these two issues “off the front burner” they may find some Christian Soldiers Marching for them.

rascal55

03-09-2005, 03:10 PM

The best thing to remember about most Christians is that their philosophy actually insists that they try to convert others. They are not doing their job unless they are tapping you on the shoulder and they won't give up. I know this first hand since my grandmother asks me everytime I see her why I am not going to church. It does not help to explain my reasons which are all very legitimate (but not something to be discussed on a public forum) she will continue to ask everytime. I just shrug and change the subject.

This probably doesn't help to solve the problem of religion creeping into our politics but I think it's always important to remember.

cpwill

03-09-2005, 03:25 PM

Why can't these people understand that not everyone in this country is a christian. And that their "values" are not everyones values. Why must they insist in trying to ram their beliefs down everyones throats?

what their opponents can't understand is that not everone in this country is secular or agnostic, and that their "values" are not everyone's values. why must they insist on trying to ram their beliefs down other's throats?

:) every US citizen has the right to vote and otherwise participate in democracy as he will.

serenity

03-09-2005, 03:50 PM

what their opponents can't understand is that not everone in this country is secular or agnostic, and that their "values" are not everyone's values. why must they insist on trying to ram their beliefs down other's throats?

The day the secular humanists come proselytizing at your door, or a tablet of rules from an ancient desert tribe with which you have some serious reservations are imposed upon your judicial surroundings, then i'll sympathize. But no one is shoving agnosticism down your throat, are they?

every US citizen has the right to vote and otherwise participate in democracy as he will.

And everyone here agrees.

Soren

03-09-2005, 04:32 PM

Unless you're a Mormon (I think...don't know much about them, really). You got this right. The most significant events in our early history happened here.

I don't agree with some of this group's agenda, but in much of it I can make common cause with them, despite the fact that I certainly wouldn't consider myself an evangelical. Here were some points that stood out to me:
http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf
Participating in the public square does not require people to put aside their beliefs or suspend the practice of their religion. All persons should have equal access to public forums, regardless of the religious content or viewpoint of their speech. Likewise, judicial standards should protect and respect not only religiously compelled practices, but also religiously motivated behavior.
SNIP
Thus, while the First Amendment protects religiously informed conscience, it does not protect all matters of sincere concern.
SNIP
Government does not have the primary responsibility for guaranteeing wholesome family life. That is the job of families themselves and of other institutions, especially churches. But governments should understand that people are more than autonomous individuals; they live in families and many are married. While providing individuals with ways to remedy or escape abusive relationships, governments should promote laws and policies that strengthen the well-being of families.
SNIP
We commit ourselves to work for laws that protect and foster family life, and against government attempts to interfere with the integrity of the family. We also oppose innovations such as same-sex “marriage.” We will work for measures that strengthen the economic viability of marriages and families, especially among the poor. We likewise commit ourselves to work within the church and society to strengthen marriages, to reduce the rate of divorce, and to prepare young adults for healthy family life.
SNIP
We further believe that care for the vulnerable should extend beyond our national borders. American foreign policy and trade policies often have an impact on the poor. We should try to persuade our leaders to change patterns of trade that harm the poor and to make the reduction of global poverty a central concern of American foreign policy.
SNIP
Because God created human beings in his image, we are endowed with rights and responsibilities. In order to carry out these responsibilities, human beings need the freedom to form associations, formulate and express beliefs, and act on conscientiously held commitments.
http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf
:thinking: I wonder if some of the people on this thread who made negative comments even read this document given what they said about it.

dhirschp

03-10-2005, 01:05 PM

It does appeal to moderates, I must say it is an interesting read, but I am still skeptical of some of their beliefs.

Captain America

03-10-2005, 01:17 PM

Platypus

03-10-2005, 01:29 PM

Churlant

03-10-2005, 01:41 PM

I actually find nothing particularly objectionable in this document. Cpwill is correct that everyone has a right to their political opinion, even if that opinion is religiously based. So long as they pursue their agenda through legal and ethical means, and accept when they are in the minority or subject to constitutional limitation, more power to them. Nobody's ramming their ideas down religious people's throats by insisting that they fight fair.

What I've placed in bold above is the friction point. While I agree nothing in this document is particularly dangerous in principle, I still become nervous when the underlying premise behind a statement is "It is our God-given responsibility to convert the government to His Will".

I'm not at all convinced that these goals are compatible with acceptance of any limitations - beyond those imposed by God, of course.

-JC

The Big Bog

03-10-2005, 01:57 PM

I'm pretty amazed at some of the progressive policies espoused in this article too. Problem is, evangelicals spend very little time actually preaching against pollution, big business, and war and spend a hell of a lot more time proselytizing against abortionists and gays. Does anyone know if the Southern Baptists issued any official statement against war in the Middle East yet? I could be wrong, but I be you'd be pretty hard pressed to find one of those little documents floating around. One would think that having a peaceful and healthy planet to live on would inherently be much more important than worrying about who's sleeping with whom or who's terminating their pregnancy.

Secondly, once they've realized that "Oh yeah, I guess we are against war, corporate greed, and pollution and stuff after all" then they need to wake up and figure out exactly what kind of politicians they need to be voting for. The very fact that they keep voting republican is enough to make me still dismiss all these evangelicals as a bunch of sheep who can't distinguish rhetoric from action.

And finally ... yes, I still can't get past the fact that I shiver every time I see scripture cited as the basis for some political belief. It would be very hard to convince me that evangelicals want nothing more than for America to be a Christian version of Iran. Sorry, I don't care if that would result in some of the most liberal policies the U.S. has ever seen, I'm not a Christian and I don't have any desire to live in a state where it's written into law that snakes once talked and God spoke to Moses through a burning bush.

(Or is God speaking to us now through a "Dubya" Bush??????? Hmmmmmm)

heel31ok

03-13-2005, 10:59 PM

Why can't these people understand that not everyone in this country is a christian. And that their "values" are not everyones values. Why must they insist in trying to ram their beliefs down everyones throats? Tell them to shut up go back in their churches and mind their business... If we want psycho religious nuts telling us things that aren't really true. We will tune in to the next presidential speech.
They have the right as citizens to try to get their beliefs enacted just as you or I do. They are minding their business. Are you suggesting they do not have the same rights as anyone to speak out for what they believe? Not everyone in this country is a christian but it seems there are enough to elect a President and possibly get items from their agenda passed. They have had things they do not believe to be true rammed down there throats . I guess the political process is ok with you as long as it involves something you agree with?

eugene40

03-14-2005, 12:17 AM

They have the right as citizens to try to get their beliefs enacted just as you or I do. They are minding their business. Are you suggesting they do not have the same rights as anyone to speak out for what they believe? Not everyone in this country is a christian but it seems there are enough to elect a President and possibly get items from their agenda passed. They have had things they do not believe to be true rammed down there throats . I guess the political process is ok with you as long as it involves something you agree with?

First I don't give a rats arse about how many christians are in this country or their little pansy in the whitehouse. They are not minding their business and to say that they are is is either dishonest or diluted you can take your pick on that one. They are trying to get their religious beliefs such as no gays, no abortions, no spongebob or whatever else lame thing they are rallying against that week codified into the law of the land that governs people that do not adhere to their religious beliefs.. And I don't care what religion it is it could be a collection of people that believe harry potter is gospel... If they try to impose their little tiny minded beliefs handed down to them by a little book on the rest of the people in this nation it is illegal and it should be stopped. The government does not enter the "sanctity" of the church and they should respect that and do the same. NO one government and or otherwise has gone into a church and said it is going to be our way I have 80 people in the parking lot and you only have 79 it is our church now we are the majority... And speaking of the majority,, our nation was founded on the beliefs that the majority (if it is religious at this time though the majority of our nation didn't vote) can NOT oppress the minority. They need to stay in the church... simple as that,, if you don't want gay marriage, if you don't want abortion... then teach your kids. religious people may think they are right and their way is the best.. But for a good number of people it is not. You can't oppress the minority no matter how many brainwashed masses that their may be.. it is just the way it goes. And if it comes to it I am sure the minority will take the fight to the majority and it isn't going to be in a courtroom or a floor of a legislative building.

I believe in our political process,,, I believe it shouldn't be subverted as the christian right is trying to do. What about you or do you only care if our plitical process is being subverted if you don't agree with what is going on.

Please,,, if you are going to respond at least try and come up with some good points.

Senor Herberto

03-14-2005, 02:27 AM

"They have the right as citizens to try to get their beliefs enacted just as you or I do. They are minding their business. Are you suggesting they do not have the same rights as anyone to speak out for what they believe? Not everyone in this country is a christian but it seems there are enough to elect a President and possibly get items from their agenda passed. They have had things they do not believe to be true rammed down there throats . I guess the political process is ok with you as long as it involves something you agree with?"

ahem, with liberty and justice for all? pursuit of happiness? freedom of religion? church and state? i am just threatened by people making morality a law. a sentiment is not a law. obey your morals to justify your own actions. do not judge others lest ye be judged is quite poignant here.

for the good of all and that it harm none, do what ye will.

cpwill

03-14-2005, 05:58 AM

But no one is shoving agnosticism down your throat, are they?

:) indeed they are, only they prefer to work through the law courts.

And everyone here agrees.

well then, you vote your way and i'll vote mine :)

eugene40

03-14-2005, 01:39 PM

:) indeed they are, only they prefer to work through the law courts.

How do they go about it in the courts. The courts adhere to the law, not religion is that how they are doing it. I don't understand how agnostics orr atheists fighting for their rights is trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of religion. So how,,, could you give some examples?

Churlant

03-14-2005, 01:56 PM

How do they go about it in the courts. The courts adhere to the law, not religion is that how they are doing it. I don't understand how agnostics orr atheists fighting for their rights is trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of religion. So how,,, could you give some examples?

This is like asking someone "how is it supposed to be spelled, then? 'Color' or 'Colour' ?"

-JC

eugene40

03-14-2005, 02:00 PM

This is like asking someone "how is it supposed to be spelled, then? 'Color' or 'Colour' ?"

-JC

True,,, but I was going for how absurd it is to say it is raming beliefs down the throats of people by appealing to a court of law.... to me that is just silly... But hey it might just be my heathen ways.

Churlant

03-14-2005, 02:33 PM

True,,, but I was going for how absurd it is to say it is raming beliefs down the throats of people by appealing to a court of law.... to me that is just silly... But hey it might just be my heathen ways.

We know it is absurd, CP does not. He knows our position is absurd, we do not. To that end it's a pointless exercise, even if fun... except CP will drag it out like 50 pages if you encourage him :p

-JC

patrickt

03-14-2005, 03:03 PM

I agree with Churlant but I don't limit my aversion to evangelical Christians. I include environmentalists, socialists, communists, socialists, federalists, feminists, and all the other -ists who wish to cram their beliefs down other peoples' throats. No true believer will accept any limitation beyond that dictated by their particular creed or dogma.

Eugene40 asked for examples of anyone other than Christians forcing their views on others. Okay, suppose you own a home and want to cut down a tree to enlarge your patio? Or, suppose you own a bar and want to cater to smokers only? Or, suppose you think the laws prohibiting convicted felons from voting should be changed by a vote and not by a judge? Or, suppose you think the politically correct speech codes violate your right to free speech?

eugene40

03-14-2005, 11:46 PM

patrickt

03-15-2005, 08:04 AM

Eugene40: I suppose our differences might involve defining religion. I think the folks protecting the tree next to the driveway are just as dogmatic and rigid and aggresive as the other religious nuts. I've heard folks speaking with a passion about the tree's right to live that would make you think you were at a "Right to Life" rally. A True Believer is the same regardless of the creed or dogma.

cpwill

03-15-2005, 08:10 AM

True,,, but I was going for how absurd it is to say it is raming beliefs down the throats of people by appealing to a court of law....

you must be unaware, for example, of the Dredd Scott decision.

cpwill

03-15-2005, 08:12 AM

except CP will drag it out like 50 pages if you encourage him :p
-JC

:D hey now, i seem to recall you were ever so slightly involved in that little merry-go-round as well ;) :lol:

cpwill

03-15-2005, 08:14 AM

How do they go about it in the courts.

:shrug: some of our judges in the last couple of decades seem to have become rather enamored with themselves and their position and have begun to create laws instead of enforcing them. they go about it by encouraging this in their favor. i believe one example is currently taking place in california.

The courts adhere to the law

:p heh. the courts are supposed to adhere to the law. the courts adhere to the law about as well as congress adhere's to spending discipline.

Platypus

03-15-2005, 08:15 AM

the courts adhere to the law about as well as congress adhere's to spending discipline.
The Republican congress, that is.

cpwill

03-15-2005, 08:37 AM

:shrug: they've done a marginally better job; still managing, however, to achieve levels of financial responsibility that would bankrupt bill gates.

as a side note; how would you feel about removing senator's ability to "christmas tree" spending?

Platypus

03-15-2005, 08:38 AM

as a side note; how would you feel about removing senator's ability to "christmas tree" spending?
I'm not familiar with the term. Could you elaborate? It might be a good starter for a new thread.

cpwill

03-15-2005, 08:41 AM

Platypus

03-15-2005, 08:57 AM

"christmas tree" a bill; senators have the right to add on anything to any legislative bill, like ornaments on a christmas tree. it's how alot of their pork gets' done. for example; if i want $2 million to study the mating habits of porcupines in my area, i simply add it on to a bill titled "In order to Save Puppies and Grandmothers Crossing The Street". now, no politician is going to vote to doom puppies and push grandma into traffic (although i wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could get away with it), so the bill passes and viola, 2 million of the taxpayers dough is off to safegaurd american interests by watching porcupines do the mumbo.
Oh yes, riders. One of the primary means by which the public's money is misappropriated, IMO. They also have other nasty effects, such as "poison pill" riders that put opposing politicians in the position of being criticized either for passing the rider or rejecting the bill itself (or vice versa) in the next election cycle. Examples can be found in the multiple "John Kerry voted to kill these weapons systems" threads. I'm not sure if a line-item veto solves the problem - mostly it just seems to replace it with a new one - but I definitely think something should be done. Bills should address a single topic as narrowly as possible (but as broadly as necessary) and should be rejected if they fail to meet that standard.

Russikan

03-15-2005, 09:20 AM

Ah yes the line item veto. I think it not only doesn't solve the problem but instead makes it worse then the Grandma and Puppy Bill is only about porcupines.

But I am with Platypus and CP (this is becoming a habit) on this one. Riders are a huge mistake and when they repeal the born in the US rule I will run for president with that as part of my platform.

Churlant

03-15-2005, 12:59 PM

:D hey now, i seem to recall you were ever so slightly involved in that little merry-go-round as well ;) :lol:

All too true, but even I know when enough is enough. Take, for example, my current self-imposed moratorium on Gay Marriage threads :)

some of our judges in the last couple of decades seem to have become rather enamored with themselves and their position and have begun to create laws instead of enforcing them. they go about it by encouraging this in their favor. i believe one example is currently taking place in california.

You have to allow that this is as much a matter of personal perspective as fact. The 'activist judge' talking point is beautiful as a tool of talk radio, but that is about as far as it goes.

Now you may not believe the federal or state constitution should be interpreted in such a way as to allow (or disallow) certain actions and/or laws. Some Judges, however, are directly responsible for applying constitution principles, whether state or federal, to existing laws. If those laws are found to be in conflict with that constitution, they are struck down. THAT is the Judge's JOB.

YOU may not like it. You obviously don't agree with it. Which is fine... but claiming they are "creating laws" simply because you don't share their opinion or their interpretation is dishonest.

-JC

julierep

03-15-2005, 01:32 PM

Why can't these people understand that not everyone in this country is a christian. And that their "values" are not everyones values. Why must they insist in trying to ram their beliefs down everyones throats? Tell them to shut up go back in their churches and mind their business... If we want psycho religious nuts telling us things that aren't really true. We will tune in to the next presidential speech.

Hey Eugene...long time since Ive spoken with you. Anyway, I am going to give my opinion on this. It is simple and to the point.....We got rights too man and to go into our churches and mind our business would not be allowing our freedom of speech....here what Im saying? For anyone to deny us our rights would fall under the same catagory that you put us in......

by the way...how have you been???

eugene40

03-15-2005, 01:50 PM

Hey Eugene...long time since Ive spoken with you. Anyway, I am going to give my opinion on this. It is simple and to the point.....We got rights too man and to go into our churches and mind our business would not be allowing our freedom of speech....here what Im saying? For anyone to deny us our rights would fall under the same catagory that you put us in......

by the way...how have you been???

Hey julie it has been a while, I have been good. how bout yourself,, it is very nice to see you on here again.

BUt I am in no way in support of limiting the rights of anyone with religion. If you want to teach your kids that being gay is bad and you can't marry,, if you want to teach that Abortion is wrong that is fine. But we are not trying to enact laws that says churches can not promote anti abortion or say that gays are an abomination.. We are not trying to make that illegal,, we are not tyin to go into churches and force you to change the bible saying that science says the earth is billions of years old. we are not trying to do anything to people pf religion (well save maybe islamic but take that up with george) What I am saying is that religious people namely certain christian groups are trying to get their RELIGIOUS beliefs codified into law that governs people not of the same belief system as their own. Can you see what I am saying... I know you guys have a right to your voice.. But you do not have a right to try to oppress and force your views of the world and nation onto people that do not believe the world is the same as you think it is. That is all I am saying. The government does not tell churches what to do.. the church is trying to tell the government and the people what to do in accordance to their beliefs. It is not right I understand you point I really do,,,, but for those that do not share your belief system it is an assault on how they want to live their lives. and contrary to what this nation was founded upon.

julierep

03-15-2005, 01:58 PM

Hey julie it has been a while, I have been good. how bout yourself,, it is very nice to see you on here again.

BUt I am in no way in support of limiting the rights of anyone with religion. If you want to teach your kids that being gay is bad and you can't marry,, if you want to teach that Abortion is wrong that is fine. But we are not trying to enact laws that says churches can not promote anti abortion or say that gays are an abomination.. We are not trying to make that illegal,, we are not tyin to go into churches and force you to change the bible saying that science says the earth is billions of years old. we are not trying to do anything to people pf religion (well save maybe islamic but take that up with george) What I am saying is that religious people namely certain christian groups are trying to get their RELIGIOUS beliefs codified into law that governs people not of the same belief system as their own. Can you see what I am saying... I know you guys have a right to your voice.. But you do not have a right to try to oppress and force your views of the world and nation onto people that do not believe the world is the same as you think it is. That is all I am saying. The government does not tell churches what to do.. the church is trying to tell the government and the people what to do in accordance to their beliefs. It is not right I understand you point I really do,,,, but for those that do not share your belief system it is an assault on how they want to live their lives. and contrary to what this nation was founded upon.

Yes, I definatley can see what you are saying, and for the most part I agree. It is not I or any other christian that will have to stand in judgement for the next person that we dont agree with, but I think the reason (IMO) that christians are trying to take a stand is because they are trying to show people the truth. We see how America has changed over the last 200 years and how imoral it has become. I dont agree, however, in trying to run other peoples lives. They will have to answer for what they do, as well as I....but that is why christians feel they have a duty to speak up. According to the word of God, we are to spread the good news, however, we are not to force it upon another.

Larani

03-15-2005, 02:07 PM

Hey julie it has been a while, I have been good. how bout yourself,, it is very nice to see you on here again.

BUt I am in no way in support of limiting the rights of anyone with religion. If you want to teach your kids that being gay is bad and you can't marry,, if you want to teach that Abortion is wrong that is fine. But we are not trying to enact laws that says churches can not promote anti abortion or say that gays are an abomination.. We are not trying to make that illegal,, we are not tyin to go into churches and force you to change the bible saying that science says the earth is billions of years old. we are not trying to do anything to people pf religion (well save maybe islamic but take that up with george) What I am saying is that religious people namely certain christian groups are trying to get their RELIGIOUS beliefs codified into law that governs people not of the same belief system as their own. Can you see what I am saying... I know you guys have a right to your voice.. But you do not have a right to try to oppress and force your views of the world and nation onto people that do not believe the world is the same as you think it is. That is all I am saying. The government does not tell churches what to do.. the church is trying to tell the government and the people what to do in accordance to their beliefs. It is not right I understand you point I really do,,,, but for those that do not share your belief system it is an assault on how they want to live their lives. and contrary to what this nation was founded upon.

That Eugene40 was well said and as a Christian I do understand what your saying and I agree with you 100%. I fully understand non-christians fighting for thier very survival as it were in the face of such strong Christian aggressiviness. I always find it so amazing how aggressive christians have become and when called on their aggressive behaviors they then claim their on the defense and not aggressive at all.

Its even funnier that I know there is not a single thing that any man or women can do to threaten my faith zero zilch nadda and yet I hear my Christian brethren claiming their faith is threatened all the time, sometimes I wonder what faith they have if at all, seems to me they don't have any faith just rules and regulations.

eugene40

03-15-2005, 02:12 PM

Yes, I definatley can see what you are saying, and for the most part I agree. It is not I or any other christian that will have to stand in judgement for the next person that we dont agree with, but I think the reason (IMO) that christians are trying to take a stand is because they are trying to show people the truth. We see how America has changed over the last 200 years and how imoral it has become. I dont agree, however, in trying to run other peoples lives. They will have to answer for what they do, as well as I....but that is why christians feel they have a duty to speak up. According to the word of God, we are to spread the good news, however, we are not to force it upon another.

Truth is different for other people. On this plain of existence we can never know the truth... Some have faith where others do not. I have 0 faith in a christian god and anything that the bible says... You believe and that is your right,, other believe it and that is their right. But everyone doesn't believe in it. I see how America has changed in the last 5 years and how "morals" (btw morals are subjective) have been on the forefront..... And frankly I find it horrendous.. wrong and annoying. Christians do have the right to speak up(which I will support and defend their right to do so) but SPEAK; if they want to stand at an altar,, or on a corner and say that the rest of us are all going to hell that is fine and it is their right to do so... just as it is my right to ignore them or if I am feeling a little mean that day point and laugh. But it is not their right to try to get their beliefs enacted into laws that govern a diverse populace. Spreading the "good" news to others is fine... pushing it upon them is not. We will all find out who is right sometime in the future. I say if people want to go to hell (if there is a hell) then let us go... Why can't they just sit in their churches content in knowing they are good and will go to heaven. I just don't understand it.

julierep

03-15-2005, 02:21 PM

Truth is different for other people. On this plain of existence we can never know the truth... Some have faith where others do not. I have 0 faith in a christian god and anything that the bible says... You believe and that is your right,, other believe it and that is their right. But everyone doesn't believe in it. I see how America has changed in the last 5 years and how "morals" (btw morals are subjective) have been on the forefront..... And frankly I find it horrendous.. wrong and annoying. Christians do have the right to speak up(which I will support and defend their right to do so) but SPEAK; if they want to stand at an altar,, or on a corner and say that the rest of us are all going to hell that is fine and it is their right to do so... just as it is my right to ignore them or if I am feeling a little mean that day point and laugh. But it is not their right to try to get their beliefs enacted into laws that govern a diverse populace. Spreading the "good" news to others is fine... pushing it upon them is not. We will all find out who is right sometime in the future. I say if people want to go to hell (if there is a hell) then let us go... Why can't they just sit in their churches content in knowing they are good and will go to heaven. I just don't understand it.

It is definatley hard to understand christians, I totally agree with that statement. And I also agree that we shouldnt force our beliefs on others. The only thing we can do is try to reach the lost, if they dont listen, that is between them and God. But to Christians, we are not content to sitting and speaking to the ones who already believe. We want to share the joy and happiness and peace that we have with others. I dont agree with changing the laws to our standards at all. I feel as long as we are able to let it be known what God represents as far as gay marriage and abortion, etc. then our duty is done. Pushing it on other people just makes them hate us even more. And Eugene, you know I dont want you to hate us :D

eugene40

03-15-2005, 11:35 PM

It is definatley hard to understand christians, I totally agree with that statement. And I also agree that we shouldnt force our beliefs on others. The only thing we can do is try to reach the lost, if they dont listen, that is between them and God. But to Christians, we are not content to sitting and speaking to the ones who already believe. We want to share the joy and happiness and peace that we have with others. I dont agree with changing the laws to our standards at all. I feel as long as we are able to let it be known what God represents as far as gay marriage and abortion, etc. then our duty is done. Pushing it on other people just makes them hate us even more. And Eugene, you know I dont want you to hate us :D

You and Larani are two of the very few christians that I have no problem with. I have no hate for you two at all.. But others that want to push their beliefs upon me at the least get my ridicule and at the most get my size 12 boot up their you know. But they are going to ruin it for the lot of you. They are going to piss off enough people someday and then those people are going to start to act like the christian fringe and it isn't going to be pretty and even worse they are going to get a lot of support for their actions.

eugene40

03-15-2005, 11:53 PM

That Eugene40 was well said and as a Christian I do understand what your saying and I agree with you 100%. I fully understand non-christians fighting for thier very survival as it were in the face of such strong Christian aggressiviness. I always find it so amazing how aggressive christians have become and when called on their aggressive behaviors they then claim their on the defense and not aggressive at all.

Its even funnier that I know there is not a single thing that any man or women can do to threaten my faith zero zilch nadda and yet I hear my Christian brethren claiming their faith is threatened all the time, sometimes I wonder what faith they have if at all, seems to me they don't have any faith just rules and regulations.

I equate it to this... Once I dealt with this one guy who I always had to deal with, Drag off to jail... He would always assault people... Then when we get there his answer would always be. "I was defending myself" And when you finally got all of the BS boiled down.. It turned out that the person he assaulted just "looked at him weird" There was no need for the agression save for deslusions in his mind. I think that also applies to the save the marriage campaign...... just always weird to me.

cpwill

03-16-2005, 12:15 AM

Truth is different for other people.

innacurate; truth is a constant; people are merely not.

On this plain of existence we can never know the truth...

say rather that we can never come to truth by ourselves.

I have 0 faith in a christian god and anything that the bible says...

;) anything?

You believe and that is your right,, other believe it and that is their right. But everyone doesn't believe in it. I see how America has changed in the last 5 years and how "morals" (btw morals are subjective) have been on the forefront..... And frankly I find it horrendous.. wrong and annoying. Christians do have the right to speak up(which I will support and defend their right to do so) but SPEAK; if they want to stand at an altar,, or on a corner and say that the rest of us are all going to hell that is fine and it is their right to do so... just as it is my right to ignore them or if I am feeling a little mean that day point and laugh. But it is not their right to try to get their beliefs enacted into laws that govern a diverse populace.

on the contrary; trying to have the law reflect your beliefs is the duty of every american citizen.

Spreading the "good" news to others is fine... pushing it upon them is not.

agreed, especially as such is ultimately impossible.

Why can't they just sit in their churches content in knowing they are good and will go to heaven. I just don't understand it.

we are under the strictest of orders never to do so.

heel31ok

03-16-2005, 12:24 AM

First I don't give a rats arse about how many christians are in this country or their little pansy in the whitehouse. They are not minding their business and to say that they are is is either dishonest or diluted you can take your pick on that one. They are trying to get their religious beliefs such as no gays, no abortions, no spongebob or whatever else lame thing they are rallying against that week codified into the law of the land that governs people that do not adhere to their religious beliefs.. And I don't care what religion it is it could be a collection of people that believe harry potter is gospel... If they try to impose their little tiny minded beliefs handed down to them by a little book on the rest of the people in this nation it is illegal and it should be stopped. The government does not enter the "sanctity" of the church and they should respect that and do the same. NO one government and or otherwise has gone into a church and said it is going to be our way I have 80 people in the parking lot and you only have 79 it is our church now we are the majority... And speaking of the majority,, our nation was founded on the beliefs that the majority (if it is religious at this time though the majority of our nation didn't vote) can NOT oppress the minority. They need to stay in the church... simple as that,, if you don't want gay marriage, if you don't want abortion... then teach your kids. religious people may think they are right and their way is the best.. But for a good number of people it is not. You can't oppress the minority no matter how many brainwashed masses that their may be.. it is just the way it goes. And if it comes to it I am sure the minority will take the fight to the majority and it isn't going to be in a courtroom or a floor of a legislative building.

I believe in our political process,,, I believe it shouldn't be subverted as the christian right is trying to do. What about you or do you only care if our plitical process is being subverted if you don't agree with what is going on.

Please,,, if you are going to respond at least try and come up with some good points.
That is nonsense ! Any group as citizens have the right to asert their political agenda no matter if you agree or not. You would espouse liberty and justice for only those who agree with you! It is only"subverted "because you do not agree. Come on if you believe in the process then let it work itself out. They are minding there own business because their agenda is their business. Hypocrites abound and would have freedom for only a select few who fit their definition of what is right.Basically I think your argument is a load of horse hockey! If someone believes abortion is wrong then they should fight against it in the political arena and as American citizens they are well within their rights. You would deny those rights would you? A Christian or person with any other religious affiliation does not lose his right just because he or she is one.I do not see how this is subversion.What about me? I do believe in the process and their are alot of things being done that I do not agree with but I do not try to say citizens do not have the right to pursue those things , when they do. As far as good making good points that is highly subjective and with you it would not matter how good a point I make you do not see anything but your own agenda. Which is why you totally miss the points I already made and probably will again!Thee is no reasoning with someone only looking to argue1

eugene40

03-16-2005, 12:29 AM

[QUOTE=cpwill]innacurate; truth is a constant; people are merely not.

I don't think so,,, no one can ever know the truth so on this plain it is nearly an impossibility to actually know the truth... don't confuse faith with truth.

say rather that we can never come to truth by ourselves.

That maybe though I think their would be a contingent of buddhists that would argue with you on that (or strongly disagree)

;) anything?
Anything!

on the contrary; trying to have the law reflect your beliefs is the duty of every american citizen.

Save when it comes from a religious standpoint. and religious beliefs.. there is a seperation between the two and both sides should be respected

agreed, especially as such is ultimately impossible.
cool

we are under the strictest of orders never to do so.

Why,,, isn't going to heaven enough for you guys? ;)

Larani

03-16-2005, 02:22 AM

That is nonsense ! Any group as citizens have the right to asert their political agenda no matter if you agree or not.

I think you are in error I think you meant religious agenda not political agenda , and I think it would be good for proper communications with others to destinguish each as seperate unless of course your a Theocracy type like Osama or the Ayatollah, in which case maybe a little more info on yourself would be helpful so we can destinguish from the two.

You would espouse liberty and justice for only those who agree with you! It is only"subverted "because you do not agree.

Maybe heel31ok becuase many Christian are not honest enough and that is why others claim subversion. case in point the begginning of your post where you use political instead of religious agenda. not a very open nor honest thing to do was it?

Maybe consider the author of the declaration of independence with regard to your last remark considering true Freedom and Liberty.

"I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words: 'The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.' Now I wish this presented to those who question what a bookseller may sell or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words, 'Roman Catholic,' and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, and be taken, like the Spanish religion, under the 'protection of wise and just laws.' It would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. It would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, and not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe."

and this

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

Larani

03-16-2005, 02:22 AM

Come on if you believe in the process then let it work itself out. They are minding there own business because their agenda is their business.

Their agenda again is based upon religion not politics. and their agenda is not to protect their way of life but to change and influence other peoples way of life, freedoms and liberties hence they indeed and Eugene is the truthful and correct one here not minding thier OWN buisness anymore then a Taliban official would be minding his own buisness when he orders a women beaten for choosing to not wear a veil.

Hypocrites abound and would have freedom for only a select few who fit their definition of what is right.Basically I think your argument is a load of horse hockey! If someone believes abortion is wrong then they should fight against it in the political arena and as American citizens they are well within their rights. You would deny those rights would you? A Christian or person with any other religious affiliation does not lose his right just because he or she is one.

Rights and Freedoms always a complicated matter in a Free society. While I do indeed have the right and the freedom to come and put a bullet hole in your head that does not make it right that I use my rights in such manner (pardon the pun) nor could it be said I was minding my own buisness the minute I pulled the trigger.

Heel31ok I have listened to Eugene for a long time and I know him to be a man of integrity. I also believe if push came to shove he would fight and die to protect your religious freedom, and that is indeed all that I hear from him even now fighting for the religious freedom of those who are not as you are.

If you choose because of your beliefs not to eat Pork I do not believe for a moment Eugene would care and if others tried to force you to eat Pork I am sure Eugene would be your bodygaurd so before you get all bent out of shape consider that, all Eugene is saying as I understand him is leave other peoples Pork the Hell alone. ( Did I say it with Eugene flavor Eugene? :lol: )

I do not see how this is subversion.What about me? I do believe in the process and their are alot of things being done that I do not agree with but I do not try to say citizens do not have the right to pursue those things , when they do.

If the above is true why the conflict? If you are truly honest when you say, "I do not try to say citizens do not have the right to pursue those things" Then why does it appear your agueing to take away peoples freedoms and liberties at least that is how I a understanding your prose. maybe I am mistaken.

As far as good making good points that is highly subjective and with you it would not matter how good a point I make you do not see anything but your own agenda. Which is why you totally miss the points I already made and probably will again!Thee is no reasoning with someone only looking to argue1

I don't think Eugene is argueing I think Eugene is fighting against something something that many Christians seem to want to deny exists, thus I understand Eugene's uses of the terms subversion.

eugene40

03-16-2005, 02:36 AM

That is nonsense ! Any group as citizens have the right to asert their political agenda no matter if you agree or not. You would espouse liberty and justice for only those who agree with you! It is only"subverted "because you do not agree. Come on if you believe in the process then let it work itself out. They are minding there own business because their agenda is their business. Hypocrites abound and would have freedom for only a select few who fit their definition of what is right.Basically I think your argument is a load of horse hockey! If someone believes abortion is wrong then they should fight against it in the political arena and as American citizens they are well within their rights. You would deny those rights would you? A Christian or person with any other religious affiliation does not lose his right just because he or she is one.I do not see how this is subversion.What about me? I do believe in the process and their are alot of things being done that I do not agree with but I do not try to say citizens do not have the right to pursue those things , when they do. As far as good making good points that is highly subjective and with you it would not matter how good a point I make you do not see anything but your own agenda. Which is why you totally miss the points I already made and probably will again!Thee is no reasoning with someone only looking to argue1

First, Larani addressed most of the points... They are pushing their religious beliefs into the government and into rules.... I state my stance clearly it is you that is having a problem reading and missing the points.. I said I do not care what religious people want to do... tell their congregation that abortion is bad,, being gay is bad,,, and whatever else. They can slit the throats of goats for all I care. But they are trying to push their Religious agenda into laws that govern people that do not believe in the same things as you do.. this is what you do not get. I am not in any way looking to argue,,, at least not with the likes of you.. give me christians like Larani and like Julierep anyday... even CPwill,, at least he reads the posts and answers them accordingly. But you miss my point about everything. You need to either read my posts to Julierep or heck I don't know... get the blinders off your eyes when you try to read. I don't know. There is a seperation of church and state.... always has been always will be. No one goes into your church and tell you guys what to do.. don't come into the country and try to push the agenda of your religion in disguise as public policy. because it isn't. They are trying to subvert the law of the land by saying that they have the majority (which they don't) and trying to enact laws that are based from their extremely narrow religious views. Our system of government was set up so that the majority shall not oppress the minority and that is what they are trying to do.

cpwill

03-16-2005, 07:23 AM

I don't think so,,, no one can ever know the truth

:p oh really; and you would claim that this is true, now, would you? ;)

so on this plain it is nearly an impossibility to actually know the truth...

:sorry: it is indeed possible to know the truth. :)

don't confuse faith with truth.

i don't; clearly it is possible to have faith in false truths, as faiths contradict.

That maybe though I think their would be a contingent of buddhists that would argue with you on that (or strongly disagree)

that would require firstly that we agree that truth exists and is knowable, which appears to be problematic for you, and secondly, i think they would agree with me;)

Anything!

ah, so, for example, you would give no credence to the idea that, say, rape, is wrong.

Save when it comes from a religious standpoint. and religious beliefs.. there is a seperation between the two and both sides should be respected

law is the enforced morality of a society, decided upon by the government.
we live in a society with a representative government.
therefore, the law that the government decides upon will be representative of it's population.
thus, the morality of the government will be representative of it's population.
it is the duty of each american citizen to participate in the government via expressing their individual will as regards policy decisions.
therefore, it is the duty of every american citizen to convey to the government their individual morality so that the government will be representative of the whole.
the source of such morality for the process described is immaterial.

it is my right and my duty as an american citizen to do just this, you are free to oppose me and one of us will likely come out ahead in a future compromise.

cool

:) truth.

Why,,, isn't going to heaven enough for you guys? ;)

not if we wish to live moral lives.
an analogy for you; perhaps you don't see it this way, but it's very much how we view the situation.
let us say that you and i are homeless in a land undergoing famine. our skin is drawn tight over our bones and we spend each day begging for scraps. let us then say that i find a magic box that produces an MRE every time i stick a hand in it.
now, what is the moral decision here? to keep the box to myself, or to tell you about it and share it with you, so that you can eat and survive as well?

it doesn't fit, exactly, of course, because this is far more critical than merely starving to death, and because in the end whether or not to share is not left up to our moral judgement, but is indeed a Direct Order from the Commander-In-Chief, if you will. :)

Larani

03-16-2005, 08:22 AM

not if we wish to live moral lives.
an analogy for you; perhaps you don't see it this way, but it's very much how we view the situation.
let us say that you and i are homeless in a land undergoing famine. our skin is drawn tight over our bones and we spend each day begging for scraps. let us then say that i find a magic box that produces an MRE every time i stick a hand in it.
now, what is the moral decision here? to keep the box to myself, or to tell you about it and share it with you, so that you can eat and survive as well?

it doesn't fit, exactly, of course, because this is far more critical than merely starving to death, and because in the end whether or not to share is not left up to our moral judgement, but is indeed a Direct Order from the Commander-In-Chief, if you will. :)

cpwill I think this was a terrible analogy to be more correct you would have to change it to be If my internal morality say's share it with you then I must and even if it means forcing you to eat it then I must even if I must gain the authority and the muscle if you will of the Federal Government to make you eat it. I think that would make a better analogy for Eugene becuase try as you might Eugene doesn't have a problem with people having their faith his problem is with people who use their Faith or Religion if you will to make moral judgements and then attempt to make policy based upon those Judgments for all to follow.

You know as a police officer I can empathise with Eugene the last thing I would want to have to do is attempt to physically force another human being to do something they did not want to do just becuase some religious groups were able to pass laws based soley on their chosen biblical morality,
But then again I know I never could hang, burn or drowned a witch either unlike some of my fellow its God's will Fundamentalists.

Platypus

03-16-2005, 08:32 AM

we are under the strictest of orders never to do so.
Really? I'm well aware of the evangelical principle, but that's about voluntary conversions and not forcing adherence to religious law using the power of the state. I rather suspect Jesus might have been against that, having been the victim of it and everything.

eugene40

03-16-2005, 12:43 PM

[QUOTE=cpwill]:p oh really; and you would claim that this is true, now, would you? ;)

I still claim not to know the exact truth of it all. BUt for some people it would be truth.

:sorry: it is indeed possible to know the truth. :)

I don't believe it is

i don't; clearly it is possible to have faith in false truths, as faiths contradict.
I agree, what if your faith is based upon a false truth.

that would require firstly that we agree that truth exists and is knowable, which appears to be problematic for you, and secondly, i think they would agree with me;)
Maybe, maybe not. They would mostly say things are the way they are.

ah, so, for example, you would give no credence to the idea that, say, rape, is wrong.

Exactly! ,,,,, heck no Right and wrong are not inclusive to just the bible. And to say it is and to think that it is is wrong.

law is the enforced morality of a society, decided upon by the government.
we live in a society with a representative government.
therefore, the law that the government decides upon will be representative of it's population.
thus, the morality of the government will be representative of it's population.
it is the duty of each american citizen to participate in the government via expressing their individual will as regards policy decisions.
therefore, it is the duty of every american citizen to convey to the government their individual morality so that the government will be representative of the whole.
the source of such morality for the process described is immaterial.

it is my right and my duty as an american citizen to do just this, you are free to oppose me and one of us will likely come out ahead in a future compromise.

As long as the morals that you want to propose to do not unecessarily oppress the minority. Religious law and morals are not for everyone. What you think is good and wholesome is disgusting for others. What you think is right is wrong for others. That is why you can do all you want, just not bring your religion to a place where everyone must adhere to it by law. And the only compromise is that we leave each other alone. I will not enter my church with dozens of my atheist and agnostic buddies and demand that you change and adhere to our beliefs and you don't try to subvert our laws by getting legislation based upon your religious morals passed.

:) truth.
Just because I agree with you doesn't make it true,,,, we just might both be right or heck we might both be wrong

not if we wish to live moral lives.
an analogy for you; perhaps you don't see it this way, but it's very much how we view the situation.
let us say that you and i are homeless in a land undergoing famine. our skin is drawn tight over our bones and we spend each day begging for scraps. let us then say that i find a magic box that produces an MRE every time i stick a hand in it.
now, what is the moral decision here? to keep the box to myself, or to tell you about it and share it with you, so that you can eat and survive as well?
Well first,,,, does it have to be a MRE those things are nasty... Can't it be a steak or a turkey burger. Second,, it is not a moral decision,, it is simply a decision.. You might think it is moral to share the wealth... I might think it is so.. Others might think it would be better to hold that power over others and make people worship something you want them to worship in order to get your precious MRE. One might use it to gain wealth and keep people ignorant of the thousand of other boxes that do the same thing that was where you found yours. Some might make others build buildings for them in order to get their MRE. Places for where this worship would occur. Some might just try to build a nation trying to appease the person with the "coveted" MRE producing box. They erect a giant statue of this box in order to show their appreciation for this box..... :D

it doesn't fit, exactly, of course, because this is far more critical than merely starving to death, and because in the end whether or not to share is not left up to our moral judgement, but is indeed a Direct Order from the Commander-In-Chief, if you will. :)

Oh no,, I liked your analogy :) However if people choose to starve to death it is their right. And you can't try to hold them down and force that nasty meal down their gullet. And again it is not really morality.... one might just beat you to death, steal the box and keep it for themselves. Morality always has and always will be subjective. what is right to you might not be right to me.

eugene40

03-16-2005, 12:46 PM

You know as a police officer I can empathise with Eugene the last thing I would want to have to do is attempt to physically force another human being to do something they did not want to do just becuase some religious groups were able to pass laws based soley on their chosen biblical morality,
But then again I know I never could hang, burn or drowned a witch either unlike some of my fellow its God's will Fundamentalists.

First,,,, if it ever came to that point. I would no longer be what I am.. In fact I would be the opposite. I would take all of my weapons, skills acquired,, my will and determination. And start a rebellion, whose sole agenda would be the destruction of everything holy.

cpwill

03-16-2005, 02:38 PM

Really? I'm well aware of the evangelical principle, but that's about voluntary conversions and not forcing adherence to religious law using the power of the state.

:shrug: which no one is trying to do.

cpwill

03-16-2005, 02:40 PM

cpwill I think this was a terrible analogy to be more correct you would have to change it to be If my internal morality say's share it with you then I must and even if it means forcing you to eat it then I must even if I must gain the authority and the muscle if you will of the Federal Government to make you eat it. I think that would make a better analogy for Eugene becuase try as you might Eugene doesn't have a problem with people having their faith his problem is with people who use their Faith or Religion if you will to make moral judgements and then attempt to make policy based upon those Judgments for all to follow.

:shrug: we weren't talking about the basis of law; we were talking about why "christians don't just sit in their church pews, content that they're going to heaven."

You know as a police officer I can empathise with Eugene the last thing I would want to have to do is attempt to physically force another human being to do something they did not want to do just becuase some religious groups were able to pass laws based soley on their chosen biblical morality

doh! you already do :)

Larani

03-16-2005, 02:45 PM

doh! you already do :)

Really please enlighten me which law do I follow that is biblical only? and not written in any other form any place else.

cpwill

03-16-2005, 02:57 PM

I still claim not to know the exact truth of it all. BUt for some people it would be truth.

and how is that possible, if no one can know truth?
relatavists have problems when their insistance runs into reality. you're someone trained in combat, eugene. now, if you're shooting me point blank in the face with an M-9; is whether or not i choose to percieve (for it to be "my truth") the presence of you and that gun going to make one bit of difference? no, it will not; whether your shooting me is my truth or not, the "truth" of the matter is that i'm about to recieve a bullet wound to the face.

I don't believe it is

then please provide reasoning for such. take the above example and work with that, if you will.

I agree, what if your faith is based upon a false truth.

then your faith is wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. They would mostly say things are the way they are.

indeed they are, but none would claim to be able to achieve enlightenment on their own. indeed, "on their own" might be a concept almost antithetical to their beliefs.

Exactly! ,,,,, heck no Right and wrong are not inclusive to just the bible. And to say it is and to think that it is is wrong.

oh..... :) so you would argue, then, that the bible contains Truth? (that is, if you are indeed willing to accept rape as a moral wrong)

As long as the morals that you want to propose to do not unecessarily oppress the minority.

i'm not into oppressing anyone who doesn't deserve it.

Religious law and morals are not for everyone.

:shrug: you've touched on two very different ideas here, religious "laws" and religious "morals".

What you think is good and wholesome is disgusting for others.

and vice versa; the great thing about representative government is that it will take sort of the average of our views.

for example; i may think that incest is good and wholesome, whereas the majority of society may think it is disgusting. society wins. ditto for animal sacrifice, any number of beliefs. however, this does not mean that society is forcing it's beliefs about incest or animal-treatment down my neck; nobody is forcing me to change my belief's that incest is good and wholesome, or that animal sacrifice is a great way to appease the gods. in fact, not only am i encouraged to keep my beliefs; i'm encouraged to activate for them to try to get society to allow me to act on them.

That is why you can do all you want, just not bring your religion to a place where everyone must adhere to it by law.

my religion? no. my morals? most definitely; as stated, it's part of my duty as an american citizen to make my morals known to my government to allow it to represent the population that it serves.

And the only compromise is that we leave each other alone. I will not enter my church with dozens of my atheist and agnostic buddies and demand that you change and adhere to our beliefs and you don't try to subvert our laws by getting legislation based upon your religious morals passed.

there you go, getting religious morals and religious law mixed up again. no one is claiming that we can or should try to change anyone's belief system via the law.

Just because I agree with you doesn't make it true,,,, we just might both be right or heck we might both be wrong

people go to Jesus willingly or not at all.

Well first,,,, does it have to be a MRE those things are nasty... Can't it be a steak or a turkey burger.

endless bacon-wrapped filet-mignon' it is :)

Second,, it is not a moral decision,, it is simply a decision..

it is indeed a moral decision. most such are.

You might think it is moral to share the wealth... I might think it is so.. Others might think it would be better to hold that power over others and make people worship something you want them to worship in order to get your precious MRE.

:shrug: others' would both be immoral and ignorant.

One might use it to gain wealth and keep people ignorant of the thousand of other boxes that do the same thing that was where you found yours. Some might make others build buildings for them in order to get their MRE. Places for where this worship would occur. Some might just try to build a nation trying to appease the person with the "coveted" MRE producing box. They erect a giant statue of this box in order to show their appreciation for this box..... :D

:) alright, clever, but innacurate.

Oh no,, I liked your analogy :) However if people choose to starve to death it is their right.

Indeed it is. however, as a christian, it is not my right not to offer them an alternative.

And you can't try to hold them down and force that nasty meal down their gullet.

i thought you wanted steak, now you're turning on that, too? ;)
:shrug: and i'm not trying to force my beliefs down anyone's throath; i'm trying to force them into law. you don't have to believe them, just as i don't happen to think (plainly speaking) that we should tax people under the age of 18 (no taxation without representation).

And again it is not really morality.... one might just beat you to death, steal the box and keep it for themselves.

then i will have done the right thing and they will have done the wrong thing.

Morality always has and always will be subjective.

innacurate; there are constants throughout morality.

cpwill

03-16-2005, 03:02 PM

Really please enlighten me which law do I follow that is biblical only? and not written in any other form any place else.

don't know about washington, but in alabama; we have blue laws. perfect example if i can think of any.
however, such is immaterial, as what you are attacking is not so much the laws themselves as the motivations for those laws. church groups claiming moral authority have been active in "forcing their morals down other people's necks" for our entire nations' history. the Civil Rights Movement, for instance.:)

julierep

03-16-2005, 06:48 PM

Larani

03-16-2005, 10:09 PM

Ok, I have a question. Lets just suppose that I wasnt a christian, but I still didnt believe in Gay marriage, abortion, etc....then, would I have more of a right to vote or take a stand against this since I was not religious as to not be pushing my religious agenda? Just a question.

Julierep being against something isn't the issue it is the why. If someone is against something then the burden of proof as it were is on him or her to prove that whatever it is? Is harmful to an extreme for all that are human regardless of their sex, race, religion ect ect, though the former could be mitigating factors such as African Americans have a higher chance of having Higher Blood Pressure thus when considering actions that increase blood pressure recommendations can be advised but making it against the law for African Americans Only from be able to eat McDonalds Egg Mcmuffins well I am rambling

I guess the point I am making is. How someone feels about something is irrelevant because one could have been taught something is icky (subjective) and hence because of such teachings and their willingness to freely choose to maintain such beliefs it is their own mind which they control freely thinking something that is icky that is the cause of their own discomfort, not the actions of others.

Now if one maintains and can prove that such actions are indeed harmful then just from the basis of self preservation the argument begins to take reasonable and even logical proportions. Just something to consider.

Larani

03-16-2005, 10:11 PM

don't know about washington, but in alabama; we have blue laws. perfect example if i can think of any.
however, such is immaterial, as what you are attacking is not so much the laws themselves as the motivations for those laws. church groups claiming moral authority have been active in "forcing their morals down other people's necks" for our entire nations' history. the Civil Rights Movement, for instance.:)

Yeah I understand that. That is why I bring up Burning Hanging and Drowning Witches or Possessed by demons if you prefer Satan's Minions Boogga Boogga as perfect examples. So what is the point other then Human beings are flawed they make flawed laws and infilct them on themselves.

the Civil Rights Movement, for instance.:)

Damn cpwill I knew you were from the South but really I didn't know you had a issue with the civil rights movement. Learn something new about someone everyday.

heel31ok

03-16-2005, 10:35 PM

First, Larani addressed most of the points... They are pushing their religious beliefs into the government and into rules.... I state my stance clearly it is you that is having a problem reading and missing the points.. I said I do not care what religious people want to do... tell their congregation that abortion is bad,, being gay is bad,,, and whatever else. They can slit the throats of goats for all I care. But they are trying to push their Religious agenda into laws that govern people that do not believe in the same things as you do.. this is what you do not get. I am not in any way looking to argue,,, at least not with the likes of you.. give me christians like Larani and like Julierep anyday... even CPwill,, at least he reads the posts and answers them accordingly. But you miss my point about everything. You need to either read my posts to Julierep or heck I don't know... get the blinders off your eyes when you try to read. I don't know. There is a seperation of church and state.... always has been always will be. No one goes into your church and tell you guys what to do.. don't come into the country and try to push the agenda of your religion in disguise as public policy. because it isn't. They are trying to subvert the law of the land by saying that they have the majority (which they don't) and trying to enact laws that are based from their extremely narrow religious views. Our system of government was set up so that the majority shall not oppress the minority and that is what they are trying to do. Now there are two of you who missed the point. The point is that as citizens these people have the absolute right to use their religious beliefs as a basis for a"political" agenda. I said political the first time and was not in error. There is nothing that says citizens cannot base their politicals goals on religion. If someone believes something is right or wrong it does not disqualify them from the political process because it stems from a religious point of view.this is where we will always disagree. This has nothing to do with eparation of chuchand state because it is not an attempt to create a state religion.

eugene40

03-16-2005, 11:28 PM

Cedars

03-16-2005, 11:42 PM

I'm not sure I understand the disagreement in this thread. Seems to me pretty much everybody here agrees that people are entitled to their own opinions and to the right to vote. Everyone acknowledges that we all have our own beliefs, whether they are religious or not, political or not, whatever. I fail to understand the concern generated here that there are some Evangelicals who are trying to get other fellow Evangelicals to vote who have not been doing so. Is it not the duty of all eligible American citizens to vote (even Evangelicals)? Aren't all Americans supposed to vote their consciences anyway? We are all products of our own beliefs and morals, no matter what religion (or lack thereof). There are those who wish to see civil unions made into law, and there are those who do not. There are those who wish to see abortion made legal, and there are those who do not. So what? These are opposing opinions and nothing new to the American legislature. Why the criticism? There are always groups trying to sway public opinion -- such as Gay Rights, Women's Rights, NAACP, just to name a few -- which are not even about religion. These Evangelicals are just one more group trying to sway public opinion and are appealing specifically to other Evangelicals. If one is not worried about the Gay Rights activists or the Women's Rights activitists or the NAACP, why should one worry about the Evangelicals? If the Evangelicals were illegally brainwashing their fellow Evangelicals (which of course they are not), then I could see the problem. As it stands, I fail to see the logic of any concern here. We are all free agents of a free nation to vote as we see fit.

cpwill

03-17-2005, 03:29 AM

Yeah I understand that. That is why I bring up Burning Hanging and Drowning Witches or Possessed by demons if you prefer Satan's Minions Boogga Boogga as perfect examples. So what is the point other then Human beings are flawed they make flawed laws and infilct them on themselves.

the point is that due to this, simply stating "oh, some people support this law due to the fact that it coincides with their religious beliefs" does not serve as a reasonable justification for discounting either it nor them; nor does it turn them into the bad guys.

Damn cpwill I knew you were from the South but really I didn't know you had a issue with the civil rights movement. Learn something new about someone everyday.

my issue with the civil rights movement is that it turned from it's better, true purpose in latter years. the TRUE civil rights movement (not what the NAACP and Jesse Jackson are doing today) was made up of hero's, including my grandparents, who marched with King. i raise them up as an example, because if you ask them why they marched at a time when they were shunned from doing so, they'll tell you "It's what God wanted us to do."

Larani

03-17-2005, 04:16 AM

double post

Larani

03-17-2005, 04:17 AM

the point is that due to this, simply stating "oh, some people support this law due to the fact that it coincides with their religious beliefs" does not serve as a reasonable justification for discounting either it nor them; nor does it turn them into the bad guys.

First to be clear I consider no man or women either bad or good. Behaviors are bad some attitudes self destructive or harmful to others but the individuals are not Bad or Evil.

So with that said I consider any law since we will indeed need to apply it with equal measure across the spectrum to all individuals cannot be based upon biblical principals or Koranic Principles or Buddists Principlas ect ect. becuase buy their very nature they would be wrong becuase they are applying one faith onto individuals not of that faith such imposition is wrong in my opinion. unless it can be shown that A. in a generic form the principle is universal and its reason and its logic still stand on its merits as a ideal. Meaning you can take away all the religious symoblism all the mumbo jumbo and the premise still holds true.

my issue with the civil rights movement is that it turned from it's better, true purpose in latter years. the TRUE civil rights movement (not what the NAACP and Jesse Jackson are doing today) was made up of hero's, including my grandparents, who marched with King. i raise them up as an example, because if you ask them why they marched at a time when they were shunned from doing so, they'll tell you "It's what God wanted us to do."

Good example take away "It's what God wanted us to do" and what do you get still a sound a reasonable and logical movement. That would be able to be applied to any set of people being oppressed by another set of people. Simply because well they can and they freely choose to think it is right until it is turned against them and that is the cortex of it logic and reason and the why it is indeed truly wrong and harmful not only to the current oppressed but even to the oppressors. It is a self destructive behavior.

JoeR

03-17-2005, 06:21 AM

Personally I think the Lemon Test is a pretty good test for if a law crosses the religion line...

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Churlant

03-17-2005, 08:17 AM

Good example take away "It's what God wanted us to do" and what do you get still a sound a reasonable and logical movement.

Are you saying that CP's grandparents wouldn't have been in the march if God happened to be neutral on the subject? :eek: ;) (joooking)

I somehow doubt that, as his grandparents were probably good people to begin with. On the flip side, plenty of people use the "it's what God wants" tag to justify their hatred of blacks... and yet I'd bet, if you took that tag away from them as well, they'd still be bigots.

-JC

julierep

03-17-2005, 12:14 PM

Churlant

03-17-2005, 12:19 PM

Honestly Churlant, that is the first I have ever heard of "God wants us to hate blacks" come from any christian. They are christian too. I am around a lot of christians all of the time, but then again, just my 2 cents.

Well, you might consider that a good thing, really. If, however, you are trying to tell me it doesn't happen... ever been to a good cross-burning?

-JC

julierep

03-17-2005, 12:26 PM

Well, you might consider that a good thing, really. If, however, you are trying to tell me it doesn't happen... ever been to a good cross-burning?

-JC

No, cant say I have, but I can only imagine that those people only claim Christianity but have never really delved into the good book.

Russikan

03-17-2005, 12:33 PM

Churlant

03-17-2005, 12:33 PM

No, cant say I have,

Well certainly you have HEARD of such things, right? I mean, you can't live in that kind of bubble...

but I can only imagine that those people only claim Christianity but have never really delved into the good book.

Agreed. I thought I'd made that clear to begin with. It is the character of the person who makes their God a loving entity - or not. That is why racists will have a God who wants them to terrorize others and kind, loving individuals will have a God who wants them to take part in equal rights marches.

If you take God out of it, the racist will still be a racist and the marcher will still march.

-JC

julierep

03-17-2005, 12:39 PM

Well certainly you have HEARD of such things, right? I mean, you can't live in that kind of bubble...

Yes, I have heard of these things. No I dont live in a bubble....I AM from the south, ya know :D

Agreed. I thought I'd made that clear to begin with. It is the character of the person who makes their God a loving entity - or not. That is why racists will have a God who wants them to terrorize others and kind, loving individuals will have a God who wants them to take part in equal rights marches.

If you take God out of it, the racist will still be a racist and the marcher will still march.

-JC

It is definatley the character of the person...sorry, I didnt see that in your first post. But to claim God in their reasons really ticks me off because people who have not or will not read the bible believe that this is really what the bible says and then end up HATING christians. When in all actuallity, what they "claim" comes from God, is the farthest thing from the truth.

Churlant

03-17-2005, 12:43 PM

Yes, I have heard of these things. No I dont live in a bubble....I AM from the south, ya know :D

Okay, just checking... I was scared for a moment.

It is definatley the character of the person...sorry, I didnt see that in your first post. But to claim God in their reasons really ticks me off because people who have not or will not read the bible believe that this is really what the bible says and then end up HATING christians. When in all actuallity, what they "claim" comes from God, is the farthest thing from the truth.

:shrug: You don't have to convince me of that :)

-JC

julierep

03-17-2005, 12:52 PM

:shrug: You don't have to convince me of that :)

-JC

Ok....just had to ramble!!! :sorry:

Soren

03-17-2005, 05:48 PM

I agree with you there julierep. There is little as embarrassing as a hypocrite who professes religiousity, especially if he/she claims to be a member of your faith.
First to be clear I consider no man or women either bad or good. Behaviors are bad some attitudes self destructive or harmful to others but the individuals are not Bad or Evil. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there, but I'm not looking to dispute about theology so I'll leave it at that.
So with that said I consider any law since we will indeed need to apply it with equal measure across the spectrum to all individuals cannot be based upon biblical principals or Koranic Principles or Buddists Principlas ect ect. becuase buy their very nature they would be wrong becuase they are applying one faith onto individuals not of that faith such imposition is wrong in my opinion. unless it can be shown that A. in a generic form the principle is universal and its reason and its logic still stand on its merits as a ideal. Meaning you can take away all the religious symoblism all the mumbo jumbo and the premise still holds true. In the sense that our laws need to adhere to principles which are almost universal in our society I agree with you. If it were true that most of our society considered alcohol an unmitigated evil, I would have no objection to its prohibition. With the social climate such as it is, I can merely argue for greater regulation of it, and amelioration of the harms it causes.
Ok, I have a question. Lets just suppose that I wasnt a christian, but I still didnt believe in Gay marriage, abortion, etc....then, would I have more of a right to vote or take a stand against this since I was not religious as to not be pushing my religious agenda? Just a question. Acording to a few here, it would seem that the answer is yes. I won't, however, trust myself to be led by such blind guides.
I'm not sure I understand the disagreement in this thread. Seems to me pretty much everybody here agrees that people are entitled to their own opinions and to the right to vote. Everyone acknowledges that we all have our own beliefs, whether they are religious or not, political or not, whatever. I fail to understand the concern generated here that there are some Evangelicals who are trying to get other fellow Evangelicals to vote who have not been doing so. Is it not the duty of all eligible American citizens to vote (even Evangelicals)? Aren't all Americans supposed to vote their consciences anyway? We are all products of our own beliefs and morals, no matter what religion (or lack thereof). There are those who wish to see civil unions made into law, and there are those who do not. There are those who wish to see abortion made legal, and there are those who do not. So what? These are opposing opinions and nothing new to the American legislature. Why the criticism? There are always groups trying to sway public opinion -- such as Gay Rights, Women's Rights, NAACP, just to name a few -- which are not even about religion. These Evangelicals are just one more group trying to sway public opinion and are appealing specifically to other Evangelicals. If one is not worried about the Gay Rights activists or the Women's Rights activitists or the NAACP, why should one worry about the Evangelicals? If the Evangelicals were illegally brainwashing their fellow Evangelicals (which of course they are not), then I could see the problem. As it stands, I fail to see the logic of any concern here. We are all free agents of a free nation to vote as we see fit.Precisely.

Cedars

03-17-2005, 09:57 PM

I know that it is impossible to vote or hold an opinion without referencing your religeon (if you have one) and therefore I do not begrudge them these meetings. However I feel disappointed that they spend so much time on the goals of abortion and gay marriage that they neglect other better goals that they themselves espouse.

The reason I object to No Gay Marriage and No Abortian is simply that unlike many others (cp I am thinking of you) I don't believe that the government is supposed to do whatever the majority wants. I think that the government should do what is in the best interests of all the people. That is why I feel that the majority not oppressing the minority is more important then a represenative government.
All of us are individuals who hold varying opinions. It is silly to complain about someone else's opinion that differs from your own. Being allowed to hold our own opinions, free speech, that is what this country is about. You are disappointed how the Evangelicals are spending their time, but what right have you to tell them that they are spending too much time on one thing when you think they should spend time on something else that YOU feel is more worthy? Are you their conscience or the judge on time allotment for any given activity? I imagine you would be one of the first to object if someone told you that you were spending too much time on something that would be time better spent on another one of your pursuits. Others may be just as disappointed in how YOU may spend YOUR time in pursuits THEY do not agree with.

Sounds like you prefer a minority (a few in government to decide for the majority) over a representative government. That is not what America is about. America is a democratic country, and it is SUPPOSED to do what it's countrymen want. That is the purpose of a democratic society. Who in the government do you think should deem what is best for the country? The politicians? A few deciding for the many is not what America is about. It's very un-democratic. Very un-American.

Russikan

03-18-2005, 12:42 AM

Well for starters I would like to point out that you just lambasted me for stating my opinion about what is more worthy even as you complained about me not respecting free speech. Ultimatly however I prefer other people informing me of their opinoins and telling me what they think is more important because my goal (however unachievable) is to eventually have analyzed everything from every possible angle.

For example even though I would prefer a government involving almost no power except the power the founder(s) (me) exerted at the begining, idealy this would be a limited anachy, practicaly it would be almost powerless represenative government, however looking at your post I would say that a Platocracy would be better in my mind than the American system.

Finally, you say that it is the American way to have the majority run things and yet the "minority" you suggested for my government is the one that currently runs your "government of the majorioty."

Finally, I don't care how un-Americain my opinions are because I am not an Americain citizen.

heel31ok

03-18-2005, 09:15 PM

heel31ok

03-18-2005, 09:25 PM

Julierep being against something isn't the issue it is the why. If someone is against something then the burden of proof as it were is on him or her to prove that whatever it is? Is harmful to an extreme for all that are human regardless of their sex, race, religion ect ect, though the former could be mitigating factors such as African Americans have a higher chance of having Higher Blood Pressure thus when considering actions that increase blood pressure recommendations can be advised but making it against the law for African Americans Only from be able to eat McDonalds Egg Mcmuffins well I am rambling

I guess the point I am making is. How someone feels about something is irrelevant because one could have been taught something is icky (subjective) and hence because of such teachings and their willingness to freely choose to maintain such beliefs it is their own mind which they control freely thinking something that is icky that is the cause of their own discomfort, not the actions of others.

Now if one maintains and can prove that such actions are indeed harmful then just from the basis of self preservation the argument begins to take reasonable and even logical proportions. Just something to consider.
now you are in error. Their is no prerequisite qualifying concept that must be envoked to be a part of the political process.It does not involve "all that are human " only those humans who come under the protection and benefits of this country. Oh it sounds really deep and all .How someone feels about something is the most relevant reason to try to make a change. If they did not care about the issue they would not try to do anything about it.

Platypus

03-18-2005, 09:26 PM

Cedars, thank you ! You are all over it. Though you will find those enlightened ones who give liberty for all lip service it is not really what is in their hearts.
It's amazing how many people around here pretend to read minds. It's possible to believe in liberty for all people and still be legimately concerned with institutions - in this case churches - wielding undue influence over government, with no inherent contradiction. I already said that I don't see any particular cause for alarm in this case, so I don't think I'm one of the people you were referring to, but I still find your implied accusation of hypocrisy pretty offensive. People can disagree with you without being evil. Get used to it.

heel31ok

03-18-2005, 09:50 PM

Larani

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

CP,,,,, Again on this point we are going to have to agree to disagree... but once again it is very much fun to debate with you. and frustrating ;)

Heel,,,, I don't know what to tell you man,,, other then take a look at CP posts and learn how to debate.
I thought this was a forum for ideas and beliefs? I am not cp and am not trying to have a formal debate . I am expressing my views which is not governed by your views of debating protocol. :sorry:

Cedars

03-18-2005, 10:33 PM

Larani

03-18-2005, 10:58 PM

now you are in error. Their is no prerequisite qualifying concept that must be envoked to be a part of the political process.

I am not in error that is and was my opinion it is my prerequisite and I stand behind it as not only rational but indeed as logical, and I am more then willing to be confronted and held accountable for any flaws in its premise in fact I would cherish finding any flaws becuase I love being wrong why because when I am indeed wrong I learn something Hurray and I love learning something.

I would also like to point out so as to be clear and leave you informed as best as possible see the last 4 words in that specific post.

"Just something to consider." You will note I even stress to the reader this is no gospel no command it was a take it as you will. Run it through your mind and if the premise is sound then good and if it was not thne come back and pokes some holes in it for me to consider.

Now with that out of the way. Lets deal with what you did contribute.

It does not involve "all that are human " only those humans who come under the protection and benefits of this country. Oh it sounds really deep and all .

All I am refering to our Americans I can do nothing or say nothing about the structure or the people of Zimbawa well I could talk about them but its there country my views would have little effect there though I believe my premise to be truly universal and thus could be used anywhere.

.How someone feels about something is the most relevant reason to try to make a change. If they did not care about the issue they would not try to do anything about it.

Feels or thinks? What someone thinks generates how they feel (Feelings) about it. and thoughts are generated by our minds and our minds are controlled by us. Influenced by others true but we are indeed fully accountable for what comes out of them unless we can prove our ignorance and show that what we thought though indeed wrong was heaviliy influnced by others in fact if we can prove we never even consider or ever heard of another possibility I would say understanding ought to be in order. One ought not place undo expectations upon children who error simply becuase they didn't now any better.

heel31ok

03-18-2005, 11:08 PM

I am not in error that is and was my opinion it is my prerequisite and I stand behind it as not only rational but indeed as logical, and I am more then willing to be confronted and held accountable for any flaws in its premise in fact I would cherish finding any flaws becuase I love being wrong why because when I am indeed wrong I learn something Hurray and I love learning something.

I would also like to point out so as to be clear and leave you informed as best as possible see the last 4 words in that specific post.

"Just something to consider." You will note I even stress to the reader this is no gospel no command it was a take it as you will. Run it through your mind and if the premise is sound then good and if it was not thne come back and pokes some holes in it for me to consider.

Now with that out of the way. Lets deal with what you did contribute.

All I am refering to our Americans I can do nothing or say nothing about the structure or the people of Zimbawa well I could talk about them but its there country my views would have little effect there though I believe my premise to be truly universal and thus could be used anywhere.

Feels or thinks? What someone thinks generates how they feel (Feelings) about it. and thoughts are generated by our minds and our minds are controlled by us. Influenced by others true but we are indeed fully accountable for what comes out of them unless we can prove our ignorance and show that what we thought though indeed wrong was heaviliy influnced by others in fact if we can prove we never even consider or ever heard of another possibility I would say understanding ought to be in order. One ought not place undo expectations upon children who error simply becuase they didn't now any better.
I did consider it and told you what I thought/felt about it.

Larani

03-18-2005, 11:20 PM

I did consider it and told you what I thought/felt about it.

Well you didn't give me much to go on except that you thought I was wrong. As for how you felt about it I didn't witness you expressing any feelings about it. Though you did indeed express your thoughts on the subject, but I didn't fully understand your thoughts or to be more specific what you found flawed in the premise which was what I was looking for. Could you please reword or take another stab at it so that I might understand you better?

Soren

03-29-2005, 07:11 PM

I was not lambasting you for stating your opinion. I was pointing out the hipocrasy of your statements. The point I was trying to make is that we all have a right to our opinions but here you are saying that Evangelicals should pursue other of their own causes which YOU feel are more worthy.Yes, and we can say that of others until the cows come home, but the truth is that people won't change their minds on such issues unless we pursuade them otherwise.
It's amazing how many people around here pretend to read minds. It's possible to believe in liberty for all people and still be legimately concerned with institutions - in this case churches - wielding undue influence over government, with no inherent contradiction. I already said that I don't see any particular cause for alarm in this case, so I don't think I'm one of the people you were referring to, but I still find your implied accusation of hypocrisy pretty offensive. People can disagree with you without being evil. Get used to it.A lesson we all need to remind ourselves of from time to time.

DRMIZER

04-07-2005, 11:40 AM

This one is kind of... interesting (or scary, or even great, depending). A full convention is taking place today in Washington for representitives of the 30-40 million Evangelicals in the U.S. (The National Association of Evangelicals, strangely enough).

The NAE is releasing a 'statement of principles' (link below). I recommend reading all 12 pages... it is very well-written, honestly.

http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf

It more or less explains why Christians have a duty to act in politics, lays out a number of initiatives (can you imagine - 'abortion' is on the list! :eek: ), and provides more than a few Bible quotes to prove their point.

-JC Just more lunatic rhetoric. It is well written but. . . . . . Reading it with objectivity, it's as though those who are not one of them couldn't possibly be in favor of "some" of those ideas. Again, they have captured morals. Only they have morals we all need to have.

Quick!, Let's wake up TJ and the other framers of the constitution. They obviously screwed up! :eek:

Soren

04-07-2005, 10:06 PM

Just more lunatic rhetoric. It is well written but. . . . . . Reading it with objectivity, it's as though those who are not one of them couldn't possibly be in favor of "some" of those ideas. Again, they have captured morals. Only they have morals we all need to have.

Quick!, Let's wake up TJ and the other framers of the constitution. They obviously screwed up! :eek:Lunatic? Which document did you read? Could you offer some support for your characterization? I'm curious why you are somehow "objective", while I am not. Am I one of them, DRMIZER? I agreed with much of it, though there are areas which I disagree with.

DRMIZER

04-08-2005, 11:18 AM

Lunatic? Which document did you read? Could you offer some support for your characterization? I'm curious why you are somehow "objective", while I am not. Am I one of them, DRMIZER? I agreed with much of it, though there are areas which I disagree with.
First, I did not say you were not objective and I have no idea whether or not you are objective. To answer your second question, I don't know if you are "one of them" or not, whoever "they" happen to be.
Let's begin with just the preamble.
The writers assume they have captured the right attitudes, concepts and perspective on the events of 911. So, to place these ideas in "their" preamble intimates that they alone have captured the keys to this knowledge or are the only ones who believe this way which certainly is not the case. To me, exclusivity of thought is a dangerous notion. Through these statements they believe that without going along with their forthcoming pronouncements America can no longer be a Christian or strong nation.

They go one to make undocumented assumptions about the media's response to their issues. I believe these are all of our issues. Again, exclusivity.

The common thread throughout the 12 pages is to involve their religious thought into govermnental policies, thought and laws AND, without their input, America has been and will be lesser of a nation