Student, 16, Finds Allies in His Fight Over Religion

[InTheGenes]

Don't all American citizens have that right? We're taxpayers and parents, too, so we should be able to have our say just like any other special interest group, right? Should Christians just shut up and sit down?

Absolutely, all private American citizens DO have that right. But if the basis of your PERSONAL lobbying (I'll get to organizational lobbying later) has at it's core religious doctrine/dogma... at what point does it become state-sponsored religion? It is not the responsibility of the political leaders of the land to look after your specific spiritual needs; that is what your church, your congregation, your pastor, etc. are for.

We DO have laws enshrined in the Constitution to protect your religious freedoms (and everyone else's)... but that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to bludgeon anyone else over the head with their version/interpretation of what is morally right, based on their religious beliefs. No one likes to be browbeaten. My guess is you wouldn't much care for having secular laws passed that were written to comply with islamic law, or Mormon religious belief, or Wiccan crede.

Did you know that there are many non-Christians who are also against or for many of the same things that Christians are against or for? Do you think Christians are the only people who are against abortion, for example?

Silly questions, both. Of course I know that there are many non-Christians who are for (and/or against) many things that Christians believe. And no, I don't think Christians are the only people who are against abortion, etc. But I don't really see how that is germane to the argument. First of all, this isn't a popularity contest. Oftentimes (in fact, I'd almost argue that MOST of the time) laws are written not so much to advance the will of the majority; but instead, they exist to protect the freedoms of the minority.

But why can't a person's religious beliefs be one of the factors that influence how he lobbies or votes? Many factors influence a person's political decisions; upbringing, occupation, race, culture, income level, sex, family composition, geography, age, education level, etc. Why shouldn't one's religion be a factor?

I'm not saying that religious beliefs can't (or shouldn't) be a component of how a person lobbies/votes. In fact, I'm sure it's always GOING to be a factor. How could it not be? What I'm saying is: when religious leaders go about "herding their flock" in a particular political direction, to bend the will of the people to their own liking, I have a big problem with that. When millions of dollars are raised by religious organizations to further a political cause, I have a big problem with that.

You mentioned earlier that you agreed that government should stay out of religion. Well.. it's supposed to work BOTH ways.

And by the way... I thought I'd point out that I have a big problem with lobbying in GENERAL... and that includes organizations that lobby on the behalf of causes that *I* hold dear. I just don't think that decisions that affect the way of life for billions of people should be made based upon which "side" was able to raise the most money. There's something inherently flawed with that kind of logic. As I said earlier, it shouldn't be a popularity contest. Fairness is seldom subjective. In our own nation's history, some Supreme Court decisions were made (for example) that were VASTLY unpopular publicly (desegregation, as one example), but were still made because basic human and civil rights were being denied.

Long before I became saved, I believed that God and Jesus were real. But I didn't believe Jesus could save me. So even though I "believed in" the existence of Jesus, I was a lost sinner on my way to Hell. Until the moment that I "believed Jesus" and trusted Him to save me, I was just as lost as the most ardent atheist denier of Christ. That moment that I repented my sin and trusted Jesus, then I "believed" Him. That's the moment I entrusted my eternal soul to Him.

If that brings comfort/meaning/purpose, etc. to your life, then I am very happy for you.

 

[InTheGenes]

Christian warfare is spiritual, not physical. Our enemy is spiritual, not physical. Our weapons are spiritual, not physical.

Christian history, however, is RIFE with examples of "bringing God's truth to the heathens"... and I do believe that quite a lot of blood has been shed in God's name.

Of course, it's not just Christians who have a bloody past (and present). MANY world religions have violent periods of time in their history... whether as an instigator of violence, or a defender.

The fact remains, however, that religious differences often drive people to commit atrocities in the name of their patron deity, and it is most assuredly not always spiritual warfare.

 

[InTheGenes]

No souls can be saved by physically forcing the Gospel on anyone. That is counterproductive.

And yet, attempts to do so are made every day.

What does that have to do with the war in Iraq? Our soldiers are not there to spread the Gospel. If an individual Christian soldier gets an opportunity to share the Gospel with another individual in Iraq, that's fine. But that's not the US military's mission.

I was referring (albeit apparently not with as much detail as I should have) to a previous discussion/debate we had on the topic of "Are ALL Muslims terrorists". The point I was trying to make recently here is that among all the varied reasons we're currently embroiled in a conflict with the citizens of Iraq (and we could argue all day long about that, I'm sure), one of reasons I believe we continue to have difficulty ENDING the conflict is an opposing worldview, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian sentiment, different beliefs, etc. To be fair, I don't think it was US who turned things into a religious war (jihad)... but nonetheless, there's no arguing that religious differences are also a factor here.

Is there a way to deal with terrorism without shedding blood?

Well, yes, I believe so. You never responded in the other thread (Are ALL Muslims...) when I stated the following:

If all Americans and allies left the Middle East tomorrow, would Islamic terrorism stop? No, I don't think so, either. However, I don't think that it would stop if the war went on for 20, 25, 30 years, either. We may kill people that are terrorists, but I don't think we'll ever kill the ideologyof terrorism. That is why I personally don't ever see a "win" scenario possible. Even IF we were able to rout out and kill each and every single terrorist in Iraq tomorrow, more would take their place. Perhaps not the next day, or the next week. But their networks are worldwide, first of all, and unless we have some way of governing how they teach their children, more terrorists are born every single day. So how is it POSSIBLE to "win the war on terror"? Nuke them into tomorrow? Yeah, that'll go over well with the world community.

At some point, diplomacy is going to HAVE to become part of the solution, because I don't believe - based on what I wrote above - that this conflict has any hope of truly "dying", if we just keep throwing troops at the problem.

Sure, I want terrorists wiped out. Because they're Muslim? NO! Because they're terrorists.

On that, we can agree.

I don't support the Islamic religion but I don't believe it should be wiped out by the sword. What shocks me is how many of them are killed by their own people.

Well, they're in the midst of a civil war. We had that little problem a little over 220 years ago, ourselves. And, it could be argued that we STILL have Americans killing Americans every day... Christians killing other Christians, etc. It's always a tragedy, it doesn't matter who's doing the killing and/or dying.

Did I say that? (My edit: in regards to forcing a Democracy upon a nation)

I assumed, given your support for the war, you were in agreement with the Bush administration that one of the goals of going to war in Iraq was to bring "much needed and much welcomed" democracy to the Iraqis. My apologies if I was mistaken.

I don't believe that the United States is a theocracy, or even that Christians are in the majority of the population. There is no "Church of the USA" as there is a Church of England.

Wow, that statement surprised me, I must admit.

There are no tax-supported denominations in the USA as there are in Germany.

Faith-based initiatives are the next best thing.

Some of our Founding Fathers were Christians, some were not. For the most part they were at least Bible literate and aware of Judeo-Christian principles. They were anti-state church but they weren't anti-Christian.

They were anti-state church AND anti-church state. I never said they were anti-Christian.

 

[Reba]

This is contradicted somewhat in a later post, where you ask (in summation) isn't it everyone's right to attempt to sway/influence secular law, as taxpayers, etc.

As American citizens, Christians have the same rights to lobby, run for office, and vote as any other citizens do, correct? What's wrong with that?

But for the sake of THIS post... what you say above DOES seem to contradict that other sentiment, somewhat. If you don't expect anyone to live their life following the scriptures until they're saved and willingly submit... then why attempt to influence secular law based on your religious/spiritual beliefs?

People who are saved follow such Scriptures as the ones that command Christians to meet together for worship, to not marry unbelievers, to teach Christian beliefs to our children, to select pastors and deacons with certain qualities, to study the Scriptures, to pray, to love the brethren, to get baptized and join a local church, to partake in the Lord's Supper, to mourn not like the heathen, and to do all for the glory of God. Those are things that certainly can't be legislated, and even if they were, would be impossible to enforce on non-believers.

The Bible also commands people don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, and don't commit adultery. Those are commandments that benefit the safe, peaceful running of any society. Just because they are given by God in the Bible does that make them not legitimate for all of our society to follow?

None of the secular laws that Christians promote would force people to convert their beliefs or join churches, so what's the problem?

If Christians promote a new law protecting children from pedophiles for Christian spiritual reasons, and non-believers promote the same law for humanist philosophical reasons, what's the difference?

It's almost like saying, "OK, you don't believe what I believe... but if I lobby the politicians enough to MAKE my beliefs into laws to which you're obligated to follow/adhere"... isn't that a bit under-handed?

What kind of law are Christians promoting that would force non-believers to become Christians? None. A law can't change a person's beliefs. Laws can only control actions, not beliefs. Are Christians promoting any laws that would force people to be baptized or join a church?

Is there any legislation being promoted that is endorsed by Christian people only, and for Christian biblical reasons only?

Obviously, there are always some people who don't believe with the majority but they're still obligated to follow the laws or suffer the consequences. There are some people who don't believe in filing or paying federal income tax but they're still obligated to do it, or suffer legal consequences.

I believe you, BELIEVE me! You needn't keep reminding me that everything you say has a scriptural basis; I've gotten that much from you. If, however, you prefer to continue doing so for the benefit of others that read our little discourse here, then by all means... exercise your free speech! But if you're doing it for MY benefit alone, you needn't bother; I gotcha!

If you notice my posts in other threads, I believe in documentation and citing sources, whether they are biblical or secular. I guess it's the career journalist in me, and old habits are hard to break.

The fact that private citizens of the United States (or any other country, for that matter) will willfully commit a crime because "God told them to", regardless of the law of the land. That same excuse has been used by anti-abortion activists who blow up abortion clinics...

That's just it, it's an "excuse" not a legitimate biblical action. It's not even logical. How can blowing up a clinic or killing a doctor stop abortion? It can't. It just reflects discredit on the peaceful groups and individulas who are against abortion, and fighting thru legal means, and spiritual means to change laws and hearts.

...by mothers who drown their children in bathtubs...

Nut cases come in all forms, believers and non-believers. There is no Christian mom movement to drown their kids.

...islamic jihadists who call on their brothers to "destroy the infidels!"

There is no worldwide Christian movement to "destroy all non-Christians". There are some crazy power-trip groups who use the name "Christian" in their titles but their violent words and actions are not in accordance with God's Word. No respectable Bible-believing church or denomination supports them. We get converts to our religion thru demonstrating God's love, not by slitting throats or blowing up people.

Each of those three examples are examples where the perpetrator of a crime (murder) has done so in the name of God, or because they believed that God TOLD them to do it.

Well, then they need to pay for their crimes. Just because they drag God's name thru the mud doesn't mean they get off, or that they represent the majority of Christians.

And for my part, I don't believe that their religious zeal was any less fervent or that their convictions were any less strongly held than your own, my dear Reba. They BELIEVE(D), as do you.

So you really think that if you don't become a Christian, I would come after you with a gun? It's because I DO trust Jesus that I would never use force, not physical or mental, to try to convert someone. If I forced someone to say, "yes, yes, I believe in Jesus" but they really didn't mean it, then their blood would be on my hands in God's eyes. If anything, I almost try to talk people out of conversion when I personally witness to them. I try to explain clearly, and emphasize that the decision must be from the heart, not the head, and not made to please any other person. It has to be totally voluntary. I tell them, don't trust what I say; check the Scriptures yourself; ask me questions.

Again, more proof here that Christians believe that the purpose (or one of them, at least) of civil government and secular law is to further religious doctrine.

No. The purpose of a peaceable and orderly government is to lessen the barriers to the Gospel. American Christians can exercise freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech, just like everyone else. We don't want or expect the American government to preach the Gospel. We do expect the government to protect our civil rights. Christians don't have any "extra" rights but neither should we have any fewer rights.

To which I say: No, NO, NO! THAT is the sentiment under which a great many people in this country chafe. That is NOT the reason for secular government, and it was never meant to be.

That's the reason God established human government systems. We don't have a theocracy. Everyone (believer and non-believer alike) benefits from civilized government and legal systems. God allows us to select our leaders and pass our laws. How is that "chafing?"

If you don't believe government is set up for a peaceable and orderly life, then what is it for? Would you prefer chaos and anarchy?

 

[Reba]

... at what point does it become state-sponsored religion? It is not the responsibility of the political leaders of the land to look after your specific spiritual needs; that is what your church, your congregation, your pastor, etc. are for.

I don't expect them to. I don't need, want or expect the government to provide for any of my spiritual needs. I don't want any laws promoting one religion or church (including mine) over another. I don't know how to state that any clearer.

We DO have laws enshrined in the Constitution to protect your religious freedoms (and everyone else's)... but that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to bludgeon anyone else over the head with their version/interpretation of what is morally right, based on their religious beliefs. No one likes to be browbeaten. My guess is you wouldn't much care for having secular laws passed that were written to comply with islamic law, or Mormon religious belief, or Wiccan crede.

I'm not asking for any "baptist" laws either.

And by the way... I thought I'd point out that I have a big problem with lobbying in GENERAL... and that includes organizations that lobby on the behalf of causes that *I* hold dear. I just don't think that decisions that affect the way of life for billions of people should be made based upon which "side" was able to raise the most money.

I guess I should phrased it differently. I don't mean just professional lobbying groups. I mean, personal lobbying, as in writing letters to Congressmen and local papers, sending donations to candidates, signing petitions, etc.

If that brings comfort/meaning/purpose, etc. to your life, then I am very happy for you.

Thank you, but I wasn't really seeking positive affirmations.

I was just trying to clarify the difference between "believing in" and "believing".

 

[Reba]

I assumed, given your support for the war, you were in agreement with the Bush administration that one of the goals of going to war in Iraq was to bring "much needed and much welcomed" democracy to the Iraqis. My apologies if I was mistaken.

If a democratic government can succeed in Iraq that would be great. If that's what their people want, that's great. But given their history and culture, I don't think forcing our Western style of government on them is a good idea. They don't have the grass roots democratic tradition in place. They have to hunger and yearn for it themselves for it to succeed. Maybe some do. But are they enough? I don't know.

Obviously with the vacuum left by the abolishing of Saddam's regime, something had to be set up. I think it would have been better if it had resulted from an immense groundswell of freedom-loving Iraqis, with a leader of strength and character emerging. But we can't always get what we want. Saddam had to go, but that doesn't mean setting up a Western democracy should have been the next step "forced" upon the people.

BTW, I'm not in lock-step with President Bush in many areas. :P

Wow, that statement surprised me, I must admit.

How so?

Faith-based initiatives are the next best thing.

They don't get my vote. I don't believe any religious organization should accept government money. Religious organizations should be supported by their own people.

They were anti-state church AND anti-church state. I never said they were anti-Christian.

OK.

 

[nightcrickets]

Christian history, however, is RIFE with examples of "bringing God's truth to the heathens"... and I do believe that quite a lot of blood has been shed in God's name.

Of course, it's not just Christians who have a bloody past (and present). MANY world religions have violent periods of time in their history... whether as an instigator of violence, or a defender.

The fact remains, however, that religious differences often drive people to commit atrocities in the name of their patron deity, and it is most assuredly not always spiritual warfare.

unfortunately, Atheists and evolutionists are becoming more intolerant against religion. They may not be violent but how would you know in the future? Anyway, I had one guy telling me that he know several countries that is doing well because of no religion. Why is that? Is it because they are forced to think alike? I can imagine them saying if you don't believe in human evolution, you will be considered as an idiot (and tell me, how this is any different than a christian saying if you don't believe in Jesus, you will go to hell????). Anyway I can see how everyone agree with each other and not headbutting each other can create less violent. It won't last long. everyone eventually will get tired of it Just like how Communism party of USA explained that People eventually head for communism, but when they get tired of communism, they will head for captialism or freedom, but when they get tired of that, they will head for socialism, when they get tired of that they will head for communism again and it goes in a cycle (USA is just a beginning to turn into socialism and perhap communism because there are some people who truly think the constitutional is too outdated and does not fit for today modern world).

People are constantly seeking for a perfect world with a perfect leadership. But only the Lord is the Perfect leadership and is able to create a perfect harmony.


and far as less violent in their country, they can be very intolarant against christians. Christians can get in serious trouble because their faith involves with spreading the good news (Jesus is the good news. you can't have the good news without hearing the bad news first. It's the bad news that people don't like hearing). They also get in trouble for wanting to raise their children in a godly way.

 

[InTheGenes]

As American citizens, Christians have the same rights to lobby, run for office, and vote as any other citizens do, correct? What's wrong with that?

I've previously addressed this topic, although I think it was AFTER the post that you were responding to here. Hopefully, I made my point there. To recap, as individual American citizens, I believe that Christians have all those same rights as everyone else. It is when a public official uses "Because God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the Bible, etc. told me so" as a reason for their decision-making and/or policy development... that is when I take issue. It is when religious (not necessarily Christian, mind you) folks seek to foist their religious morality on the rest of us that I begin to chafe under the yoke of unwelcome religious dogma.

The Bible also commands people don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, and don't commit adultery. Those are commandments that benefit the safe, peaceful running of any society. Just because they are given by God in the Bible does that make them not legitimate for all of our society to follow?

The difference between us is that you believe that those "laws/rules/commandments/etc." were given by God in the Bible, and I don't. Absolutely, I see where they benefit society, and am glad that we have laws against murder, theft, etc. There are many things that I personally hold "sacred" that are also enshrined in your religious text that overlap... I don't have a problem with the coincidence. When our fellow man does something that infringes on the basic human rights (life, liberty, etc.) that we're all meant to enjoy, then of course I'm glad that we have laws on the books that serve to protect those liberties.

None of the secular laws that Christians promote would force people to convert their beliefs or join churches, so what's the problem?

That's not altogether true. There are quite a few secular laws that are being promoted (or challenged) by Christians (and other religious folk; I don't necessarily want to lump ALL people that believe in God into one group) that - while they don't force me to join a particular church - would still require me to live my life (assuming I obeyed the laws) according to religious (or religiously-based) tenets. Let me see if I can lay out for you a few examples of what I'm talking about:

• Prayer in school
• Use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance
• Use of the words "In God We Trust" on American currency
• Religious icons in public buildings
• Swearing an oath upon the Bible, Q'ran/Koran, etc.
• An office set up by the President of the United States devoted to Faith-Based Initiatives
• Intervening in end-of-life decisions (as with Terri Schiavo)
• The debate over same-sex (civil) marriage
• (dis)Allowing gays and lesbians to legally adopt
• Sex education in public schools
• Attempts to remove discussion of evolution from the curriculum of science classrooms
• Attempts to force inclusion of intelligent design in the curriculum of science classrooms
• Stem-cell research
• Abortion

The list goes on, but hopefully I've made my point. I have no idea where you stand on many of those issues (although I can guess), but that is just a sampling of the kind of "yoke" I was talking about earlier.

So yeah, if (I'll just say the Religious Right, to encompass those in the "other camp", as it were) had their way with the listed topics above (and indeed, on some issues, they already do), you can bet it feels like living in a non-free society, to someone who doesn't share those same religious views.

If Christians promote a new law protecting children from pedophiles for Christian spiritual reasons, and non-believers promote the same law for humanist philosophical reasons, what's the difference?

Well, the main difference is motive. Again, there are likely going to be areas where humanist principles are overlapped by laws set forth in the Bible, and as mentioned previously, I have no problem with that. But just as I don't believe government has any business regulating/governing religious law, I don't believe religion has any business regulating secular law.

I guess the problem is... where do moral beliefs end and religious beliefs begin?

What kind of law are Christians promoting that would force non-believers to become Christians? None.

See above.

A law can't change a person's beliefs. Laws can only control actions, not beliefs.

Perhaps you mean secular law? Because it would seem to me that religious law/doctrine DEFINES some (if not most) of your beliefs.

Are Christians promoting any laws that would force people to be baptized or join a church?

Perhaps in this, we're merely debating semantics. No, I don't believe there are laws being promoted by Christians that would force people to be baptized or join a specific religion. My point is that there is a concerted effort of the part of some Christians to base (or affect) some secular laws on religious belief/doctrine.

That's just it, it's an "excuse" not a legitimate biblical action. It's not even logical. How can blowing up a clinic or killing a doctor stop abortion? It can't. It just reflects discredit on the peaceful groups and individulas who are against abortion, and fighting thru legal means, and spiritual means to change laws and hearts.

My point was, to THEM it absolutely was a legitimate biblical action. I'm no biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but aren't there edicts in Leviticus (that same book that is used so often in condemnation of homosexuality) that command the devout to stone their children to death if they weren't respectful of their parents? Or selling them into slavery? And wasn't there something about being put to death for working on Sunday, wearing cloth of two different threads, and planting different crops side by side, etc?

Nut cases come in all forms, believers and non-believers. There is no Christian mom movement to drown their kids.

Now maybe you get an inkling of just how scary it can be when we hear about things done in "Jesus' name", etc. You can flippantly dismiss this as the actions of a nut case... but I wonder... what makes the strength of her beliefs any different from yours, or any other person purporting to live "God's word"?

There is no worldwide Christian movement to "destroy all non-Christians". There are some crazy power-trip groups who use the name "Christian" in their titles but their violent words and actions are not in accordance with God's Word. No respectable Bible-believing church or denomination supports them. We get converts to our religion thru demonstrating God's love, not by slitting throats or blowing up people.

When you have a moment, I'd be interested in hearing from you which "crazy power-trip groups who use the name "Christian" in their title" you're talking about. Because I'll be totally honest with you: sometimes, it's REALLY difficult to know which "nut case" claiming to speak for God is speaking for the majority of his "flock", and which are just gasbags. Like... do people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson fall into that category, as far as you're concerned? Or do they, in speaking for God, speak for you, as well?

So you really think that if you don't become a Christian, I would come after you with a gun? It's because I DO trust Jesus that I would never use force, not physical or mental, to try to convert someone. If I forced someone to say, "yes, yes, I believe in Jesus" but they really didn't mean it, then their blood would be on my hands in God's eyes. If anything, I almost try to talk people out of conversion when I personally witness to them. I try to explain clearly, and emphasize that the decision must be from the heart, not the head, and not made to please any other person. It has to be totally voluntary. I tell them, don't trust what I say; check the Scriptures yourself; ask me questions.

When I spoke of the "dangers" of religious zealotry, I wasn't talking about being fearful that you were going to come after *me* with a gun if I didn't convert. I was more making a point that your "one true faith" would inevitably come up against another "one true faith", and we'd be embroiled in yet another conflict. In that comment, I was speaking more in the global sense, than national/local.

Although... I'll make one point here. In your response, you seem to think that I'm concerned about being forced to convert to a specific religion, etc. That's not it. It's being SUBverted by religious doctrine wearing secular clothing that bothers me. Once relgious doctrine is enshrined in secular law, you (the mild-mannered Believer) won't have to be the one responsible for enforcing (with guns, or without) the law.

If you don't believe government is set up for a peaceable and orderly life, then what is it for? Would you prefer chaos and anarchy?

I DO believe that, among other things, governement (which, by the way, I obviously do not believe is divinely inspired) is set up for a peaceable and orderly life. But I can make the distinction between the fact that a peaceable and orderly life does not require adherance to religious creed, or a belief that all that is good must be divine.

 

[Reba]

My viewpoint:

...
[*]Prayer in school

Shouldn't be required in public schools; shouldn't be prohibited if individual students want to pray privately. That's why I sent my daughter to Christian school. I encourage Christian parents to send their children to Christian schools or to home school.

[*]Use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance

No one is forced to even say the pledge at all.

[*]Use of the words "In God We Trust" on American currency

Is that really a problem? Just curious.

Atheists can use debit cards (JUST KIDDING!).

[*]Religious icons in public buildings

One person's icon for worship is another person's art. Depends on how it's used.

[*]Swearing an oath upon the Bible, Q'ran/Koran, etc.

Traditional but not required.

Even some Christians don't do that. The Bible says not to swear but to only state; one's word should be enough without swearing an oath.

Matthew 5
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

When I re-enlisted, I requested the officer say, "affirm" instead of "swear". No problem.

[*]An office set up by the President of the United States devoted to Faith-Based Initiatives

I don't support that.

[*]Intervening in end-of-life decisions (as with Terri Schiavo)

Christians, non-Christians, and non-religious were on both sides of that decision.

[*]The debate over same-sex (civil) marriage
[*](dis)Allowing gays and lesbians to legally adopt
[*]Sex education in public schools

Again, not "Christian v. non-Christian" debates.

[*]Attempts to remove discussion of evolution from the curriculum of science classrooms

From what I've heard and read, the attempt by most people or groups is not to remove discussion of evolution but to allow discussion of other viewpoints.

[*]Attempts to force inclusion of intelligent design in the curriculum of science classrooms

Another reason I support Christian schools instead of public schools.

[*]Stem-cell research
[*]Abortion

Again, not Christian v. non-believer debates.

Well, the main difference is motive.

Do you mean that if a person's motive for not stealing your car is based on obeying God rather than Section whatever of the penal code, that makes a difference to you?

I guess the problem is... where do moral beliefs end and religious beliefs begin?

You tell me since it seems important to you to differentiate.

Who's to say even "moral" beliefs are "right" or necessary? Some people are amoral. Where do they fit in?

Perhaps you mean secular law? Because it would seem to me that religious law/doctrine DEFINES some (if not most) of your beliefs.[/quote]
Both. Even the laws of the Old Testament addressed behaviors not beliefs. Beliefs can be manifested by outward behaviors, and laws can control behaviors, but laws can't change what's happening inside the person.

My point was, to THEM it absolutely was a legitimate biblical action.

People do things for nutty non-biblical reasons, too. What does that prove? It proves that some people are nutty, and they manifest that nuttiness in all kinds of ways. Some non-Christian people get their "orders" to kill from space ships; who do you blame for that?

Born-again Christians know that if a dream or a "voice" orders them to do something that is contrary to Scripture, then it's not of God. If they follow a voice instead of the Bible, then they have some other problem going on inside.

I'm no biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but aren't there edicts in Leviticus (that same book that is used so often in condemnation of homosexuality) that command the devout to stone their children to death if they weren't respectful of their parents? Or selling them into slavery? And wasn't there something about being put to death for working on Sunday, wearing cloth of two different threads, and planting different crops side by side, etc?

Wow, those are the exact same references that I answered in detail in a previous thread! How convenient. I'll try to find the link and post it so I won't have to answer for (I think) the third time.

Now maybe you get an inkling of just how scary it can be when we hear about things done in "Jesus' name", etc. You can flippantly dismiss this as the actions of a nut case... but I wonder... what makes the strength of her beliefs any different from yours, or any other person purporting to live "God's word"?

Because those actions are contrary to Scripture. If she does something destructive to others, then she'll have to pay society's price. Saying, "God told me" doesn't get anyone off the hook.

When you have a moment, I'd be interested in hearing from you which "crazy power-trip groups who use the name "Christian" in their title" you're talking about.

I think DeafDyke has a list; she usually posts them by name at least once in every religious debate thread.

If not, I'll try to give more details later.

Like... do people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson fall into that category, as far as you're concerned?

They don't speak for me, if that's what you mean. I don't send them any money, I don't attend any of their meetings, I don't watch their programs on TV. Neither does my church support them.

When I spoke of the "dangers" of religious zealotry, I wasn't talking about being fearful that you were going to come after *me* with a gun if I didn't convert.

I have gun but I don't use it for witnessing. :P

I was more making a point that your "one true faith" would inevitably come up against another "one true faith", and we'd be embroiled in yet another conflict. In that comment, I was speaking more in the global sense, than national/local.

If that other "true faith" physically threatens my life or the lives of my loved ones or fellow citizens, then I'm not going to just roll over.

Do only Christians defend their lives and property from others, whatever their religion or ideology?

... I can make the distinction between the fact that a peaceable and orderly life does not require adherance to religious creed, or a belief that all that is good must be divine.

Government systems can be peaceable and orderly without being Christian (Pax Romana). That doesn't mean God can't take advantage of them for His purposes.

All good is of God, whether someone believes it or not. One doesn't need to "believe in" the earth orbiting around the sun but it keeps on spinning anyway.

Got to go get the grand kids for bowling now.

Chat later.

 

[Foxrac]

I don't like when teacher who talked about God thing at public school but if students are wish to want see like that then just go to private school like Christian school or something.

 

[christlovedeaf]

I don't like when teacher who talked about God thing at public school but if students are wish to want see like that then just go to private school like Christian school or something.

well, that is depend, if relating on history of religion culturals and etc. like the reasoning they believe and what had happen in the war and etc. it isnt actually preaching style at all.

 

[SxyPorkie]

Hmmmmmm.....how come there's no Satanism Fellowship of Althletes?

Your post does makes sense... Youe funny... hahaha