Disbelief is not a choice

souggy said:
Would you accept someone telling you babies come from storks? Of course not, you are already well-versed in the topic of sexual reproduction. You know the stork story is false.

Similarly, do you need Santa to keep a naughty or nice list? No, you already know the consequences of not being nice to someone. You don't need Santa to keep you in line.
Click to expand...

No Virginia, there is NOT a Santa Clause. He has been captured by Homosexual Baptists. :cool2:
 
Steinhauer said:
is there a push from the left to make religious people out to be .... hmmmm ... nutjobs?

In other words, is there a push to delegitimize (if that is even a word) the POV of person's of faith in regards to homosexuality?

I could be wrong, but that is par for the course in discussions such as these.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure who is part of the political Left... But there will always be groups of people that jump at the opportunity to label religious folks as "jutjobs" But since you are asking about political viewpoints, it's inherently risky to alienate the conservative voters in America. Meaning that the politicians that attempt to label religious as nutjobs will probably be out of a job themselves.

if anything, Faith and Religion seems to be the most powerful motivator in shaping the political views regarding homosexuality (for example: same sex marriage).

Not sure if I nailed your questions there.
 
Cheetah said:
I'm not exactly sure who is part of the political Left... But there will always be groups of people that jump at the opportunity to label religious folks as "jutjobs" But since you are asking about political viewpoints, it's inherently risky to alienate the conservative voters in America. Meaning that the politicians that attempt to label religious as nutjobs will probably be out of a job themselves.

if anything, Faith and Religion seems to be the most powerful motivator in shaping the political views regarding homosexuality (for example: same sex marriage).

Not sure if I nailed your questions there.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that those who support same sex marriage are staunch critics of the conservative religious right.

I don't foresee there ever being a compromise.

edit to add: You have two opposing ideologies that view the other as hateful.
 
Steinhauer said:
I was just pointing out that those who support same sex marriage are staunch critics of the conservative religious right.

I don't foresee there ever being a compromise.

edit to add: You have two opposing ideologies that view the other as hateful.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis/conclusions.

Just because someone supports same sex marriage does not necessarily mean they are a staunch critic of the conservative religious right. Wait a sec, I thought the right was liberal and the left was conservative??? Did they change while I was looking the other way or did I always have this wrong?

I also disagree that there is a blanket "hate" between the opposing ideologies. I think it's more of the two sides are in a perpetual disagreement. While there is a lot of emotion there, for the most part there is not true hate.
 
Cheetah said:
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis/conclusions.

Just because someone supports same sex marriage does not necessarily mean they are a staunch critic of the conservative religious right. Wait a sec, I thought the right was liberal and the left was conservative??? Did they change while I was looking the other way or did I always have this wrong?

I also disagree that there is a blanket "hate" between the opposing ideologies. I think it's more of the two sides are in a perpetual disagreement. While there is a lot of emotion there, for the most part there is not true hate.
Click to expand...

The left is not conservative. Just remember "righty tighty lefty loosey". Its an odd way of saying the right is conservative and the left is liberal.

Yes, supporters of same sex marriage are staunch critics of the religious right. Anytime a pastor, priest, rabbi, cleric, etc. preaches against homosexuality - there is always a "hate speech" lawsuit filed.

It is now illegal in the UK for any member of the clergy to preach against homosexuality (at least the last time I checked).

Have you checked out HR 254?

if not here it is:

Read The Bill: H.R. 254 [110th] - GovTrack.us
 
Steinhauer said:
The left is not conservative. Just remember "righty tighty lefty loosey". Its an odd way of saying the right is conservative and the left is liberal.

Yes, supporters of same sex marriage are staunch critics of the religious right. Anytime a pastor, priest, rabbi, cleric, etc. preaches against homosexuality - there is always a "hate speech" lawsuit filed.

It is now illegal in the UK for any member of the clergy to preach against homosexuality (at least the last time I checked).

Have you checked out HR 254?

if not here it is:

Read The Bill: H.R. 254 [110th] - GovTrack.us
Click to expand...


I'm just not involved enough in these issues to really put well thought out arguments together. I will concede to your viewpoints for now. :)
 
Isn't it only natural for someone who is gay or gay friendly to be against those who preach against homosexuality?

Its like asking back in the 1940s "Hmm... I wonder if there is a push from black people to make white supremacists out to be.. mmmm.. nutjobs?"

BTW... Youd be surprised by how many white supremacists exist today and they are pissed because they have to defend themselves all the time. "We aren't KKK. We are not violent. We don't kill black people. We just are proud of our race and believe we should stand up for OUR rights." So.... why wouldn't they say stuff like "Hmm... I wonder if there is a push from black/hispanics/liberal people to make us out to be.. mmmm.. nutjobs?"
 
So then, there is a push to eradicate people of faith? Hmmm ... like that is new. Let's take into consideration that this is an attempt to eradicate people of faith from all races, and not just white men. Yeah, I know, that may be difficult to comprehend for some people :giggle:

let's see ..... when has the religious right ever considered homosexuals to be 1/4 human, forced them to be sold into slavery, segregated them in public businesses, not allowed them to vote, etc. ad infinitum?

I really do not think this is a civil rights issue. I could be wrong though.

edit to add: If I am mistaken, then forgive me, but I think the crux of the OP's argument is an attempt to eradicate/invalidate the POV of those individuals who see the world through through their religious beliefs. In the same breath, the OP has asked that no religious discussion be brought up.

If that isn't tyranny, I don't know what is. The US Constitution specifically grants rights for religious freedom. Religious speech is protected speech - whether or not one agrees or disagrees. The beauty of this freedom, is that no one is penalized for disagreeing, or agreeing with any specific religious belief. I would think that the Pilgrims who made it to the new world, did so, that they could flee their oppressors that mandated what they should or should not believe.

That whole Church of England thingy ....

Oooohhh ... and about Baptists! I always thought this was interesting:

Martin Luther King - Biography

In 1954, Martin Luther King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.
Click to expand...
 
Religion will never be wiped out. Eventually same sex marriage will be a constitutionally recognized right. Both will co-exist.

I have seen the future! :D
 
Steinhauer said:
So then, there is a push to eradicate people of faith? Hmmm ... like that is new....
Click to expand...
You're right, that's nothing new.

I guess they haven't studied history. In the past, attempts to stifle or even destroy believers ended up strengthening the resolve of believers, and increasing their numbers.
 
Creation science is NOT free speech; nor does it belong under the umbrella of "separation of Church and State". It's not even theology. It's psuedo-science.
 
Reba said:
Steinhauer said:
So then, there is a push to eradicate people of faith? Hmmm ... like that is new..../QUOTE]
You're right, that's nothing new.

I guess they haven't studied history. In the past, attempts to stifle or even destroy believers ended up strengthening the resolve of believers, and increasing their numbers.
Click to expand...

I know ... that is why I said it was nothing new.

(see how the "real" argument is coming out of the woodwork? ;) )
Click to expand...
 
souggy said:
Creation science is NOT free speech; nor does it belong under the umbrella of "separation of Church and State". It's not even theology. It's psuedo-science.
Click to expand...

"Creation Science"? is that anything like Intelligent design?
 
souggy said:
Creation science is NOT free speech; nor does it belong under the umbrella of "separation of Church and State". It's not even theology. It's psuedo-science.
Click to expand...

It was science that continued to support segregation as well as the T-4 euthanasia mercy killing centers of the Third Reich. Not saying that all science is bad - it can be used for good and evil.

It was religion, specifically, the teachings of religion, that ended segregation.

It was also a devoutly religious man that allowed our nation to land on the moon. He was a creationist, but why don't students ever learn about that?

Maybe it has been politicized?

Wernher von Braun - Wikiquote

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all.

From a letter to the California State board of Education (14 September 1972)
Click to expand...

more info on that whole "science is the adversary of religion and vice versa" crappola:

"Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings." What cha think? - Yahoo! Answers
 
Cheetah said:
"Creation Science"? is that anything like Intelligent design?
Click to expand...

Intelligent design a vague concept. The first person who proposed it wasn't even religious to begin with. You can have intelligent design without creation science. There are a number of people who believe in a watch-maker deity such as deism or pantheism. There are still those who believe God is a guiding hand and still accept mainstream science; these are called "liberal Christians". So you can have intelligent design without creation science.

Creation Science is trying to prove a global flood, trying to prove the Earth is indeed 6,000 years old, that giants once existed, the universe is 10,000 years old, that all life was created multiple times all at once. If you're Hovind, you probably believe dinosaurs still exist.
 
Steinhauer said:
It was also a devoutly religious man that allowed our nation to land on the moon. He was a creationist, but why don't students ever learn about that?

Maybe it has been politicized?
Click to expand...

not to be rude... But maybe his religious views really does not matter when discussing science/the history of space flight?
 
Gotta hand it to you guys ... it's been a relatively mature discussion .... so far.

I will have to check this thread out later. Gotta get some shut eye.
 
Back
Top