U.S. govt religious persecution alive and well!

[edwardmurphy]

Funny you say that, because the SJW movement, with its Radical Feminism, its Pro-LGBTQAlphabetSoup, and its blatant Racism against white people, tends to put its ears in its fingers and whine and complain about the "cis hetero white male patriarchy" all the dang time, crying "racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, rape culture", and a bunch of other bunk claims.
Funny thing is, even atheists are sick of this nonsense. Especially the ones who hold to a more egalitarian viewpoint. They're not necessarily anti-LGBTQAlphabetSoup, but they still understand that it's wrong for these people to forcibly shut down small businesses of people who disagree with their views, and that it's wrong for these people to force their ideas on others.

First off, "anti-LGBTQAlphabetSoup" is just as much a pejorative as "crackpot fundie" or "Jesus freak." You're belittling peoples' identities, beliefs, and lifestyles. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to do so when similar behavior aimed at Christians is deemed "persecution." There's only one set of rules - if it's persecution when it's done to you then it's persecution when you do it.

As far s the "SJW " thing, I had no idea what you meant and had to Google the term. I discovered that it's in internet pejorative aimed at liberal blowhards, but I didn't see anything to suggest that there's a "movement." In any case, I'll concede that there are unreasonable people on both sides of the issue.

As far as forcibly shutting down small owners who disagree with their views, I guess that's one way to put it. Another is that small business owners who use religion to justify discriminating against people whose personal lives they don't approve of are violating the law. Now replace "gay wedding" with "biracial wedding" or "Christian wedding" and tell me that it's not precisely the same thing. The cake lady was too prejudiced to make a cake for a gay couple and too stupid to come with a better justification for her decision. "Jesus says I have to be a bigot" won't hold up in court, and she's not getting any sympathy from me, either.

I admit, sometimes Christians tend to exaggerate in crying persecution, though that doesn't mean that persecution doesn't happen. Also, just because a few Christians have a persecution complex doesn't mean that there aren't blatant unconstitutional anti-religious pushes.

I'm still really struggling with your use of the p-word. What I'm seeing is conservative Christians getting really angry because non-Christians are pointing out that Christians have long enjoyed special privileges and it's unconstitutional. Opening the school day with a prayer, having the Ten Commandments on display in our court houses, and having mangers in public buildings are all examples of that phenomenon. Don't get me wrong - I 100% understand the anger and I'd be surprised not to see it, but that doesn't make it any less a tantrum over losing special status.

What, you didn't hear about prayer being banned from schools? Even at the flagpole? Even in the cafeteria? You haven't heard about lawsuits being filed over this? Why is it that Muslim students are being permitted to carry knives into schools for religious purposes, yet Christians are told not to pray in school? (Yes, this actually happens. >_>) You can't discriminate against one religion and give special privileges to another. It's unconstitutional.

PRAYER IS NOT BANNED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

Schools may not organize prayer groups, or push religion, or do anything else that would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the school is advocating a religion.

However...

Prayer is a First Amendment right. It is protected by the Constitution, even under the tyrannical rule of Barack Hussein Obama. Students may silently pray whenever they feel like it. They may pray out loud, alone or in groups, whenever they have unscheduled time. They may organize daily prayer groups, and their teachers may participate, provided they do it before school or during lunch and in an unofficial capacity. In other words...

PRAYER IS NOT BANNED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

Regarding the Muslim thing, I have no idea what you're talking about.

If someone's offended by me praying, that's their problem. The constitution doesn't give anyone the "right to not be offended." It does, however, give people the right to "freedom of speech". To say that "freedom of speech doesn't protect being offensive" is ultimately to say that "freedom of speech doesn't protect freedom of speech" or "freedom of speech doesn't really mean freedom of speech." Offense can only be taken, not given, and that's what people don't understand. If an idea is bad and faulty, show it with reason, and not with emotion. Racism isn't wrong because it's racism. Racism is wrong because it devalues a fellow human being.

Exactly. And your right to pray is protected by the Constitution. That's why I keep saying that you're not being persecuted.

What's with the "other groups finally getting rights that straight Christians have enjoyed" nonsense? Marriage has historically been recognized universally by all cultures for socio-economic purposes, derived from understanding inherent natural truths. There are males, there are females, it takes a male and a female to reproduce, and people die. There's also a commonly held belief that people own property. So, this creates a question: Given that people own property, what happens to their property when they die? Who takes ownership over it? Marriage was an answer to this question. A man and a woman produce children, and the children inherit the property of their fathers. Marriage has always been about that. And with the inheritance of the previous generation's property, also comes the inheritance of the previous generation's responsibility.

It's not nonsense.

A thousand years ago there were plenty of Christian homosexuals and plenty of unwanted Christian children. Some of those Christian homosexuals could have gotten married, adopted some of those unwanted Christian kids, and passed their property to them when they died, precisely like their heterosexual counterparts. And the world would have been better for it. So why didn't they? Because homosexuality was a capital offense.

By comparison, heterosexual Christians under Christian rule have literally never had to contend with that kind of persecution.

Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

The divorce rate has been steadily declining for 30 years...

[edwardmurphy]

FI wrote:
Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

So, are you saying we should wait until the kids are grown and out of the house, and then get a divorce?

No. Marriage is still a commitment, and divorcing after the kids have left the house is still a bad idea. After all, their kids, when they've become adults, are probably going to have kids of their own. And grandparents still participate in the process of raising children. So even after the kids have grown up, there's still grandkids to look after. The grandkids need to see that marriages can still last, from not just their parents, but from their grandparents as well. Same reason still applies.

But on the flip side, if the two parents get divorced, and then remarry, that effectively doubles the number of grandparents on that side of the family. Which in turn means more people to love the grandchildren. More love is good isn't it?

What? That's not how it works! Are you joking?

It can be.

My daughter has 4 men she calls grandpa - my dad, my wife's dad, my current step dad, and my former step dad. Any one of them would lay down in traffic for her. She also has 3 grandmas - my mom, my wife's widowed dad's second wife, and my former step dad's current wife. They're all there for her whenever she needs them.

I won't say that it's always been easy for everyone involved, but divorce doesn't have to be a spiteful and vindictive battle.

[FlawedIntellect]

Social Justice Warrior? A pejorative term? You have no idea what you're talking about. SJW is precisely what the movement calls itself.

If you wish for more information about the history of the Social Justice Warrior movement, and its effects on games journalism and personal liberty (though the video is specifically oriented around UK politics), might I advise you to check out the youtube channel of Sargon of Akkad? (Hilariously enough, he's been attacked as "right-wing", despite his political views being "center-left.")

On another note, there have been instances of prayer being banned in schools: http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/11/high- ... free-time/
For another article on the same situation: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/school-bans- ... -together/
In a Michigan High School, prayer was banned from the football field: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 35414.html

By the way, this article points out that although there was indeed a ban on government-promoted prayer in schools, some school boards /did/ go overboard and ban private prayer from cafeterias and the like (so yes, it has happened.): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 ... e-history/

As far as forcibly shutting down small owners who disagree with their views, I guess that's one way to put it. Another is that small business owners who use religion to justify discriminating against people whose personal lives they don't approve of are violating the law. Now replace "gay wedding" with "biracial wedding" or "Christian wedding" and tell me that it's not precisely the same thing. The cake lady was too prejudiced to make a cake for a gay couple and too stupid to come with a better justification for her decision. "Jesus says I have to be a bigot" won't hold up in court, and she's not getting any sympathy from me, either.

Except, the anti-discrimination law is with regards to employment and general service. The cases of declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding is, ironically enough, from bakers whom have not refused to bake to homosexuals in general. They simply didn't want to participate in a particular ceremony.
On another note, here's what a homosexual baker had to say about the whole mess: http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/21/they- ... -lesbians/
As for me, my question is, why bother to shut down a company by force with the courts, when you could take the less expensive, capitalistic route, by going to a competitor within the same area who is more than happy to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding? Voting with one's wallet, shall we say? It's far more expensive to pursue a legal battle instead of just going to the competition.

It is well within the right of a private business to refuse service to whomever, for any reason. By technicality, the refusal of service wasn't "discrimination" (I don't give a crap what the courts ruled. >_>), but rather benign refusal of service.

Also, don't people have the constitutional right to believe and speak as they want?

With regards to your continued nonsense, "discrimination" is your only cry. Well, I hate to break your littel heart, but nature itself discriminates against the homosexual lifestyle for one clear reason: It does not produce progeny. Furthermore, is all discrimination inherently bad? Some discrimination is healthy, and some is unhealthy. Mind you, I'm speaking in terms of discrimination against deeds, NOT discrimination against people.

And there's an immense difference between biracial weddings, and "gay weddings." For one, the concept of "gay marriage" goes against the nature and historic purpose of marriage. This isn't about "justifying discrimination", as you put it, but rather about promoting an environment for stable population growth and good health.

Also, mind you, homosexuality (the actions involved) is looked upon as sinful, and given something Jesus said, it's clear that he wouldn't recognize a homosexual union as marriage, as That is not how it was in the beginning.

Why are you even here on this forum to begin with? Are you here to learn about and understand another point of view? Or are you here to convince yourself that you're somehow more righteous than the rest of us here on this forum?

[edwardmurphy]

Social Justice Warrior? A pejorative term? You have no idea what you're talking about. SJW is precisely what the movement calls itself.

If you wish for more information about the history of the Social Justice Warrior movement, and its effects on games journalism and personal liberty (though the video is specifically oriented around UK politics), might I advise you to check out the youtube channel of Sargon of Akkad? (Hilariously enough, he's been attacked as "right-wing", despite his political views being "center-left.")

You are entirely correct. I know nothing about the SJW movement, which I believe is what I said prior to stating that I had to Google it. I didn't research it very thoroughly because I didn't really care.

I didn't watch the videos, and I'm not going to - that's more time than I'm willing to invest on a topic I don't care about. I did, however, do a more thorough Google search. I didn't find any evidence that there are people calling themselves Social Justice Warriors or that there was any sort of movement with that name. As far as I can tell it's become an Internet meme to belittle outspoken, sometimes reactionary and irrational, progressive Internet posters by sarcastically labeling them SJWs. In his comments section Sargon of Akkad seems to use the term precisely as I've described.

If you have more information, or a link to the "movement's" website or manifesto or something feel free to post it.

On another note, there have been instances of prayer being banned in schools: http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/11/high- ... free-time/
For another article on the same situation: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/school-bans- ... -together/

Apparently the kid was doing a prayer group during study hall, which isn't allowed. The school had erroneously permitted it for several years (no idea why) and then opted to end it (again, no idea why). The kid sued, claiming that his rights were being violated because he wasn't allowed to pray any time during the day, which is false. The school pointed out that he could do the prayer thing during lunch and removed the study hall from the schedule, and both sides walked away claiming victory.

As far as I can tell, the school made an error by allowing Bible study during academic time, which then made it look like a crackdown when they decided to start following the rules. Anyway, no persecution here.

In a Michigan High School, prayer was banned from the football field: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 35414.html

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students.

The coach admitted that he was the one who started the tradition, admitted that it was unconstitutional, and stopped doing it. It's not persecution, it's following the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court (which is how it's supposed to be done, again according to the Constitution of the United States).

By the way, this article points out that although there was indeed a ban on government-promoted prayer in schools, some school boards /did/ go overboard and ban private prayer from cafeterias and the like (so yes, it has happened.): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 ... e-history/

Decent article, despite the title being a bold-faced lie. PRAYER IS NOT BANNED IN SCHOOLS! According to the article there have been occasions when schools erroneously told kids they weren't allowed to pray, although it doesn't say when, where, or why. The author implies that such incidents generally took place before "parties on both sides of the school prayer debate (took) a second look at the court’s reasoning in the school prayer case and (came up with consensus guidelines that allow religious expression in the classroom."

Long story short, sometimes people make mistakes and misinterpret the law (although it seems to be pretty uncommon), but mistakes aren't synonymous with persecution and there's no reason to freak out about it. A quick call to the teacher and/or principal should be enough to solve any problems, and I suspect that most people try that rather than jumping straight to GAARRR! CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN OUTRAGE! mode. The rush to outrage is more of a pundit's trick.

As far as forcibly shutting down small owners who disagree with their views, I guess that's one way to put it. Another is that small business owners who use religion to justify discriminating against people whose personal lives they don't approve of are violating the law. Now replace "gay wedding" with "biracial wedding" or "Christian wedding" and tell me that it's not precisely the same thing. The cake lady was too prejudiced to make a cake for a gay couple and too stupid to come with a better justification for her decision. "Jesus says I have to be a bigot" won't hold up in court, and she's not getting any sympathy from me, either.

I don't give a crap what the courts ruled.

And nobody's saying that you have to, but the fact remains that in our legal system the courts have the power to make rulings. The law was on the books, the baker violated it, and when she went to court she lost. Perhaps you could take comfort in the fact that a gay, atheist baker can't turn away a Christian bride, either.

Also, don't people have the constitutional right to believe and speak as they want?

Believe, yes. Speak, yes. Discriminate based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and so forth, no.

With regards to your continued nonsense, "discrimination" is your only cry. Well, I hate to break your littel heart, but nature itself discriminates against the homosexual lifestyle for one clear reason: It does not produce progeny.

By that logic nature also discriminates against women with ovarian cysts, testicular cancer survivors, and elderly people by preventing them from producing progeny. Should we ban their marriages as well?

Besides that, so what? We're not endangered pandas, so it hardly matters if every marriage produces progeny. Plenty of straight couples make a deliberate choice not to have children. Should their marriages be invalidated?

Furthermore, is all discrimination inherently bad? Some discrimination is healthy, and some is unhealthy. Mind you, I'm speaking in terms of discrimination against deeds, NOT discrimination against people.

How, pray tell, might one discriminate against homosexual deeds without discriminating against homosexual people?

And there's an immense difference between biracial weddings, and "gay weddings." For one, the concept of "gay marriage" goes against the nature and historic purpose of marriage. This isn't about "justifying discrimination", as you put it, but rather about promoting an environment for stable population growth and good health.

Here's the justification for the ban on interracial marriage, taken from Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that struck down such bans in the 16 states still enforcing them:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

And here's a justification for Christian opposition to same-sex marriage:

It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

They sure seem like similar arguments...

Besides, you previously stated that marriage was about property and inheritance. Gay couples can adopt, artificially inseminate, or hire a surrogate, so they can have children. Anybody with children would be concerned about property and inheritance and would, therefore, meet your marriage validity standard.

Regarding the nature argument, there is documented, widespread homosexuality in nature, and apparently it is a positive adaptation. There's plenty of research to do yet, but it could very well turn out that suppressing homosexuality is what's unnatural.

Population growth? Please, there are 9,000,000,000 of us. We're fine.

Good health? Seems like they do okay.

Also, mind you, homosexuality (the actions involved) is looked upon as sinful, and given something Jesus said, it's clear that he wouldn't recognize a homosexual union as marriage, as That is not how it was in the beginning.

So? The United States isn't a theocracy. If you feel that Jesus would be opposed to same-sex marriage then I guess you shouldn't enter into one.

Why are you even here on this forum to begin with? Are you here to learn about and understand another point of view?

Sure, I'm interested in learning and understanding other points of view, but I'm not an anthropologist here to study you. I have my own point of view as well, and I'm expressing it in the places where it seems appropriate to do so. I won't pop into theological debates and make snarky comments, but when it comes to discussing non-belief and politics I figure I have as much to add as anybody.

Or are you here to convince yourself that you're somehow more righteous than the rest of us here on this forum?

Nope, I'm no more righteous than anybody else.

[FlawedIntellect]

Social Justice Warrior? A pejorative term? You have no idea what you're talking about. SJW is precisely what the movement calls itself.

If you wish for more information about the history of the Social Justice Warrior movement, and its effects on games journalism and personal liberty (though the video is specifically oriented around UK politics), might I advise you to check out the youtube channel of Sargon of Akkad? (Hilariously enough, he's been attacked as "right-wing", despite his political views being "center-left.")

You are entirely correct. I know nothing about the SJW movement, which I believe is what I said prior to stating that I had to Google it. I didn't research it very thoroughly because I didn't really care.

I didn't watch the videos, and I'm not going to - that's more time than I'm willing to invest on a topic I don't care about. I did, however, do a more thorough Google search. I didn't find any evidence that there are people calling themselves Social Justice Warriors or that there was any sort of movement with that name. As far as I can tell it's become an Internet meme to belittle outspoken, sometimes reactionary and irrational, progressive Internet posters by sarcastically labeling them SJWs. In his comments section Sargon of Akkad seems to use the term precisely as I've described.

If you have more information, or a link to the "movement's" website or manifesto or something feel free to post it.

Except, that Sargon of Akkad tends to cite sources in the descriptions of his videos, so you're more than free to look there if you want actual information on the SJW movement.

On another note, there have been instances of prayer being banned in schools: http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/11/high- ... free-time/
For another article on the same situation: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/school-bans- ... -together/

Apparently the kid was doing a prayer group during study hall, which isn't allowed. The school had erroneously permitted it for several years (no idea why) and then opted to end it (again, no idea why). The kid sued, claiming that his rights were being violated because he wasn't allowed to pray any time during the day, which is false. The school pointed out that he could do the prayer thing during lunch and removed the study hall from the schedule, and both sides walked away claiming victory.

As far as I can tell, the school made an error by allowing Bible study during academic time, which then made it look like a crackdown when they decided to start following the rules. Anyway, no persecution here.

Yes, persecution, which you're clearly advocating. >_> The 1st Amendment doesn't exclude "prayer groups", by the way, and refusing to allow him (and others) to pray during study hall is a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

In a Michigan High School, prayer was banned from the football field: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 35414.html

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students.

The coach admitted that he was the one who started the tradition, admitted that it was unconstitutional, and stopped doing it. It's not persecution, it's following the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court (which is how it's supposed to be done, again according to the Constitution of the United States).

Unconstitutional? Really? I don't buy it. The coach has the right to allow for prayer on the field, if he wants to, and him supporting such things is a matter of his personal beliefs, and not a matter of his role of authority at the school, so this is utter garbage.

By the way, this article points out that although there was indeed a ban on government-promoted prayer in schools, some school boards /did/ go overboard and ban private prayer from cafeterias and the like (so yes, it has happened.): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 ... e-history/

Decent article, despite the title being a bold-faced lie. PRAYER IS NOT BANNED IN SCHOOLS! According to the article there have been occasions when schools erroneously told kids they weren't allowed to pray, although it doesn't say when, where, or why. The author implies that such incidents generally took place before "parties on both sides of the school prayer debate (took) a second look at the court’s reasoning in the school prayer case and (came up with consensus guidelines that allow religious expression in the classroom."

I agree that the title itself is misleading. Which is why I didn't focus on the title itself, but rather the content of the article. Again, it has been banned by some overzealous people involved in the school.

Long story short, sometimes people make mistakes and misinterpret the law (although it seems to be pretty uncommon), but mistakes aren't synonymous with persecution and there's no reason to freak out about it. A quick call to the teacher and/or principal should be enough to solve any problems, and I suspect that most people try that rather than jumping straight to GAARRR! CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN OUTRAGE! mode. The rush to outrage is more of a pundit's trick.

>_> Yeah, the laws are being misinterpreted: into a way that violates the 1st Amendment. The mistake is the new position.

As far as forcibly shutting down small owners who disagree with their views, I guess that's one way to put it. Another is that small business owners who use religion to justify discriminating against people whose personal lives they don't approve of are violating the law. Now replace "gay wedding" with "biracial wedding" or "Christian wedding" and tell me that it's not precisely the same thing. The cake lady was too prejudiced to make a cake for a gay couple and too stupid to come with a better justification for her decision. "Jesus says I have to be a bigot" won't hold up in court, and she's not getting any sympathy from me, either.

I don't give a crap what the courts ruled.

And nobody's saying that you have to, but the fact remains that in our legal system the courts have the power to make rulings. The law was on the books, the baker violated it, and when she went to court she lost. Perhaps you could take comfort in the fact that a gay, atheist baker can't turn away a Christian bride, either.

>_> Beg to differ. The bakers were forced to participate in something that goes against their religious beliefs, plain and simple. There was no violation of the law here. The court was wrong.

Also, don't people have the constitutional right to believe and speak as they want?

Believe, yes. Speak, yes. Discriminate based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and so forth, no.

Enough of your special pleading on "discrimination".

With regards to your continued nonsense, "discrimination" is your only cry. Well, I hate to break your littel heart, but nature itself discriminates against the homosexual lifestyle for one clear reason: It does not produce progeny.

By that logic nature also discriminates against women with ovarian cysts, testicular cancer survivors, and elderly people by preventing them from producing progeny. Should we ban their marriages as well?

Besides that, so what? We're not endangered pandas, so it hardly matters if every marriage produces progeny. Plenty of straight couples make a deliberate choice not to have children. Should their marriages be invalidated?

Missing the point entirely. Defects in physical characteristics impeding reproductive activity is not the same as deliberate misuse of physical characteristics in a way that causes bodily harm.

Furthermore, is all discrimination inherently bad? Some discrimination is healthy, and some is unhealthy. Mind you, I'm speaking in terms of discrimination against deeds, NOT discrimination against people.

How, pray tell, might one discriminate against homosexual deeds without discriminating against homosexual people?

I take it that you never heard of the notion of "hate the sin and love the sinner"? Or that the law makes judgments on people on the basis of their deeds rather than on the basis of their physical characteristics?

And there's an immense difference between biracial weddings, and "gay weddings." For one, the concept of "gay marriage" goes against the nature and historic purpose of marriage. This isn't about "justifying discrimination", as you put it, but rather about promoting an environment for stable population growth and good health.

Here's the justification for the ban on interracial marriage, taken from Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that struck down such bans in the 16 states still enforcing them:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

I don't buy Leon Bazile's claim for even a minute. It doesn't even Biblically hold up. I don't ever recall Paul forbidding Jewish Christians from marrying Gentile Christians, for one. Secondly, if you're going to try to appeal to the Old Testament, the context clearly specified that the matter was one of ideological nature (I.E. keeping foreign religions out of the land of Israel), and not one of race. Granted, Israel was a theocracy at the time, and I'm not pressing for a theocracy in this time either. My point is that there's no Biblical precedence for racism, and those that try to attribute such from scripture are having to go through quite the mental gymnastics to falsely justify their view.

And here's a justification for Christian opposition to same-sex marriage:

It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

They sure seem like similar arguments...

Except, there are actually Biblical principles by which to oppose homosexuality. The argument is clearly very different in both nature and substance.

Besides, you previously stated that marriage was about property and inheritance. Gay couples can adopt, artificially inseminate, or hire a surrogate, so they can have children. Anybody with children would be concerned about property and inheritance and would, therefore, meet your marriage validity standard.

All of that is irrelevant.

P.S.: Jac, this is why the marriage argument from nature lost in the grand political debate. Not because it lacked merit, but because people like Ed here just handwaved the matter away.

Regarding the nature argument, there is documented, widespread homosexuality in nature, and apparently it is a positive adaptation. There's plenty of research to do yet, but it could very well turn out that suppressing homosexuality is what's unnatural.

Except that regarding "homosexual" behavior in animals as being the same as in humans is rather inaccurate, and suffice it to say, it'd be more accurate to say that animal sexual tendencies are not exclusively homosexual, let alone that they have inherently different social implications in the animal kingdom VS humanity, among other things. Furthermore, exclusive homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is rather unproductive for obvious reasons.

Population growth? Please, there are 9,000,000,000 of us. We're fine.

Except, that people don't seem to grasp the concept of self-restraint in terms of sexual conduct, which results in lots of pregnancies, and hence, the response being lots of abortions. Which itself is a problem, as it shows callous disregard for human life.

Good health? Seems like they do okay.

>_> http://www.westernjournalism.com/woman- ... narrative/ Ignore the sensationalist title and focus on the contents of the article. Long story short, Leslea Newman disagrees with you. She was raised by lesbian parents, and wrote a book called "Heather has two mommies." Though as she started to raise children of her own with her husband, she felt that she missed out on something in her childhood. Specifically, a father figure. Sure, she turned out just fine, but that doesn't mean that she might not have been missing something from her childhood.

Also, mind you, homosexuality (the actions involved) is looked upon as sinful, and given something Jesus said, it's clear that he wouldn't recognize a homosexual union as marriage, as That is not how it was in the beginning.

So? The United States isn't a theocracy. If you feel that Jesus would be opposed to same-sex marriage then I guess you shouldn't enter into one.

I was never calling for the United States to become a theocracy. I was speaking as to why Christianity is inherently so firmly opposed to same-sex unions.

Why are you even here on this forum to begin with? Are you here to learn about and understand another point of view?

Sure, I'm interested in learning and understanding other points of view, but I'm not an anthropologist here to study you. I have my own point of view as well, and I'm expressing it in the places where it seems appropriate to do so. I won't pop into theological debates and make snarky comments, but when it comes to discussing non-belief and politics I figure I have as much to add as anybody.

Except, the matter of the same-sex debate is not just political, but also has ramifications for real-life scenarios, and has been a deeply engrained aspect of the Christian faith.

Or are you here to convince yourself that you're somehow more righteous than the rest of us here on this forum?

Nope, I'm no more righteous than anybody else.

[/quote]
Your pompous attitude would like to have a word with you.

[B. W.]

FlawedIntellect, what would anyone expect from an militant atheist except the morality based solely upon the wave of the hand?

Romans 3:10,23

Titus 3:5,6,7
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

FI, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Your positions make no sense to me, and your responses to my arguments make me feel like I must have been writing in Klingon or something.

FlawedIntellect, what would anyone expect from an militant atheist except the morality based solely upon the wave of the hand?

I can't decide if you're a crackpot or a troll, but either way there's not much point in responding...

[B. W.]

FI, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Your positions make no sense to me, and your responses to my arguments make me feel like I must have been writing in Klingon or something.

FlawedIntellect, what would anyone expect from an militant atheist except the morality based solely upon the wave of the hand?

I can't decide if you're a crackpot or a troll, but either way there's not much point in responding...

Very good article:

Atheism and the Desecration of Life
Jul. 30, 2015 8:00am
Kayleigh McEnany
Link to cited article

Throughout the month of July, a series of videos were released exposing Planned Parenthood executives detail how they “crush” babies and subsequently harvest and sell their organs. Meanwhile, just last week news broke that “Dr. Death” plans to gas members of an audience in Edinburgh, Scotland as part of his “right to die” campaign.

Taken together, we’ve witnessed the desecration and irreverent harvesting of humanity at the start of life and the extermination of humanity at the end of life all in the span of a month.

But should we really be that surprised?

Infamous atheist academic Richard Dawkins has painstakingly and enthusiastically noted the decline of religiosity in society. Calling this phenomenon “The Great Decline,” Dawkins notes that, over the past 15 years, “the drop in religiosity has been twice as great as the decline of the 1960s and 1970s.” As an atheist, Dawkins celebrates this.

Another atheist — a more intellectually honest atheist — observed a similar decline during the turn of the 19th century. In the 19th century, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed “God is Dead.” But this intellectually honest atheist was wise enough to predict the consequences of such a proclamation. Nietzsche observed that, because God died in the 19th century, the 20th century would be the bloodiest century on record.

Indeed, Nietzsche was right. Not only was the 20th century the bloodiest century, more humans lost their lives in the 20th century than all of the previous 19 centuries combined.

Ironically, Nietzsche’s writings were a foundational text for Adolf Hitler, who distributed Nietzsche’s work to his fellow dictators, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. At the epicenter of the carnage of World War II was Nietzsche’s harrowing announcement that God was Dead, and along with it a large faction of humanity.

You see, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias observes, in the absence of belief in a moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. In the absence of moral law derived from some existential universal truth, our laws and our morality rests on little more than subjectivity.

When observing the horrid news coming out about Planned Parenthood and the right to die movement, the proponent of subjective moral reasoning is forced to grapple with the following questions: Why is it wrong to harvest the organs of what could have been viable human babies for profit? Why is it wrong to gas audience members in a celebratory sideshow of death?

The theist can readily answer these questions: God created human life; Every human life is a reflection of God and thus deserving of respect; Therefore, it is wrong to harvest human organs for profit, and it is likewise wrong to gas human beings in a sideshow of death on a stage in Edinburgh.

The atheist, however, is forced to engage in a vain attempt to explain why these actions are wrong without reference to an overarching moral law or, worse, accept the fact that is perfectly fine to treat the beginning or end of life with such disdain. Sadly, the pro-choice and pro-right-to-die movement have opted to do the latter.

Further emphasizing this same logic, Zacharias asks quite pointedly: “If the murder of innocents is wrong, it is wrong not because science tells us it is wrong but because every life has intrinsic worth — a postulate that atheism simply cannot deduce. There is no way for… an atheist to argue for moral preferences except by his own subjective means… For [an atheist] to convince us that Hitler was wrong to do what he did, he has to borrow from an objective moral framework to support his point.”

This is the truth of a world without God: We are left to our own subjectivity, and as the 20th century demonstrates, that has rather dire and bloody consequences.

Bigot...

Bigot defined from Websters Merriam Dictionary: Bigot - a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc: a bigoted person; especially a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Strange thing about bigots - their personal bigotry persecutes...

Therefore would the readers following this say that militant atheist such as the likes of Dawkins fits the definition of bigot?


-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

The article was about what I've come to expect from you - one sided, inflammatory, and half true. It's a shame that you're so consistent.

Bigot...

Dawkins and the rest of the New Atheist movement are notable more for being anti-religious than atheist. I get where they're coming from - people have done a lot of damage in the name of religion - but I don't care for the tactic. I don't believe in gods and I don't much care for religion, but I know and respect lots of sincerely religious people and I see no point in attacking their systems of belief. Besides, I completely agree with this statement that I snagged from this thread:

The answer that will be given is that religion is implicated in many human evils. Of course this is true. Among other things, Christianity brought with it a type of sexual repression unknown in pagan times. Other religions have their own distinctive flaws. But the fault is not with religion, any more than science is to blame for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or medicine and psychology for the refinement of techniques of torture. The fault is in the intractable human animal. Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience – in this case, conversion to unbelief.

As far as whether or not Dawkins can be a bigot, yeah, sure he can. And while we're on the subject, your last post included an article by a Christian bigot. And for that matter, you've made a number of bigoted statements about me. None of those facts can reasonably be used to condemn all atheists or all Christians, although I suspect that you're about to do it anyway.

Just for the record, since I've been posting here I haven't taken a single shot at any religion, apart from stating that I'm not a believer and not a fan. Most of my comments have been about a small number of conservative Christians pushing a couple of ridiculous ideas - specifically that American Christians are being persecuted, and that using religion as an excuse to discriminate is somehow okay.

On that note, here's a clip from the Daily Show that does a great job illustrating the ridiculousness of the persecution myth.

[B. W.]

Mr. Ed it is up to you to prove that Christian persecute atheist by means of enacting laws and then hiding behind those laws to prove they are not persecuting anyone. However there are plenty of examples that prove that atheist ideology guides secularism to persecute Christians by means of enacting laws and then hiding behind those laws to prove they are not persecuting anyone. Such as you own words prove.

Folks here have granted you plenty of evidence that the beginning stages of legal harassment, intimidation, ridicule, mocking which defines persecutions beginning stages is indeed alive and well in the USA. What is amazing is how someone like yourself is indeed adding to this form of bigotry. You say you are not yet your own words prove that you do support these beginnings of such persecution by telling Christians they have no right to stop any of this before it gets out of hand then morphing to likes seen in Muslim countries. You tell us we are stupid and fabricating things - wow!

The irony is amazing, only atheist and secular humanist and progressive liberals have a right to defend themselves and only their views are the only ones to be heard in society and must be accepted or else!!! Ridicule indeed comes. For Christians - NO defense - No debate - not allowed - due to the myth of atheistic persecution by Christians and Christian persecuting society with such nonsense as thou shall not commit premeditated murder, not slander, not covet, honor parents, love one another...love God.

Edward or Gumby, Christians do not like, or support, the idea of murder of the unborn and selling fetal baby parts under the disguise of woman's right to choose as you do. Neither do we support the exploitation of women's reproduction rights for lobbyist to use abortion monies to fund democrat’s election campaigns and dupe women to be simply many sexual one night stands. Christians do not view human beings in the same class as animals either.

Nor do we Christians support the exploitation of minorities’ populations for abortion purposes under the disuse of sexual Education and population control as so stated by Margaret Sanger the Founder of Planned Parenthood:

Margaret Sanger the Founder of Planned Parenthood quotes

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

Because we Christians are against premeditated murder, we are viewed as the enemy are are treated like this and forced to be silenced.

You do not understand us or our position by God to defend the weak, the fatherless ad thus wish us to roll over and die in silence locked away inside our homes never sharing our faith on the outside. So what part of thou shall not (premeditated) murder do you do no understand and answer why this is wrong...

Next, we Christians would like to teach our children not to make the same mistakes we made before becoming Christians so they do not have to deal with the psychological and physical problems caused by sexual immortality - why is this a great evil to you? Why is that such a great evil for us to warn the world about the effects of this too? What is wrong with monogamy that we must be silenced?

We Christians do not support the use of slandering lies that dehumanize another. Why is this a crime to you and the left? Why is this practiced against Christians and conservatives daily in the USA in the halls of academia, journalism, media, movies, books, legislation, judicial activism, and IRS targeting? What crime did we commit by not supporting slander and the taking of another goods under the disguise of governmental enforced social justice?

No, guess what, through circular logic you will claim that you think in certain cases murder, slanderous lying, the coveting and taking of another goods through re-distribution is wrong. But do you really? Why do you seek to destroy Christians rights to express themselves publicly and openly? Why is such expression deemed a crime by you?

So what crimes have we Christians committed against society? Please list them...

Was it because Christian led the way in the abolition of slavery, woman suffrage is Voting rights, the civil rights movement? Were these things such great evil to the atheist progressive socialist secularist agenda? Do we, Ed, enslave minorities to inner city ghetto areas, keeping them impoverished, ignorant, easily controlled for the fact of garnering (canvassing) votes by use of fear tactics? Who is doing that? Coffee is on - smell it yet

Mr. Ed, you stated you desired a dialog - if you do please list our Crimes against humanity and the need to silence Christianity and to prevent Christians from defending themselves against legal moves such as the 501 3 c ruling which prevents Christians from having a political voice from the pulpit in exchange with tax exemption? Is not that an abridgment against free speech?

Where are the laws that force you to go to church? Say the pledge? What laws are so oppressive to you that we support by imposing legal fiat? Maybe we like peace and civility more than you do, and in fact more than you think or ever dare admit too.

Others asked this question - Why are you here?

It is apparent that it is not about dialog for if it really was - you could prove Christians enacting laws that take away atheist right not to believe in God or else face some sort of legal sanction.

All that Christians really do is present the gospel of Jesus Christ for one to accept or reject. If enough folks accept the message society is persevered healthy, if rejected by society, together we all gain turmoil, insecurity, rise of true enemies, open practices of depravity, and our own ruin and destruction ensured as things are currently heading in the USA.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ message summed up:

Isaiah 61:14 NLT. "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives,And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, 3 To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning,The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.” 4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins, They shall raise up the former desolations, And they shall repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations."

Why is this so evil to you?
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Mr. Ed it is up to you to prove that Christian persecute atheist by means of enacting laws and then hiding behind those laws to prove they are not persecuting anyone.

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. I never said that atheists were being persecuted. Frankly, I don't think that they are, although they have been in the past and they likely would be again if the religious right got their way. I simply pointed out that the things you claim are persecution happen all the time and to many groups of people. Nobody gets their way all the time, but that doesn't mean that there's a vast conspiracy out to get them.

Having said that, if you want evidence of persecution it's pretty easy to come by. The constitutions of seven states (Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas) specifically ban atheists from holding public office. This is the second time I posted that tidbit, which further supports my contention that you're not bothering to read my replies.

However there are plenty of examples that prove that atheist ideology guides secularism to persecute Christians by means of enacting laws and then hiding behind those laws to prove they are not persecuting anyone. Such as you own words prove.

My words prove what??? Seriously, what on earth are you babbling about?

Folks here have granted you plenty of evidence that the beginning stages of legal harassment, intimidation, ridicule, mocking which defines persecutions beginning stages is indeed alive and well in the USA. What is amazing is how someone like yourself is indeed adding to this form of bigotry. You say you are not yet your own words prove that you do support these beginnings of such persecution by telling Christians they have no right to stop any of this before it gets out of hand then morphing to likes seen in Muslim countries. You tell us we are stupid and fabricating things - wow!

The irony is amazing, only atheist and secular humanist and progressive liberals have a right to defend themselves and only their views are the only ones to be heard in society and must be accepted or else!!! Ridicule indeed comes. For Christians - NO defense - No debate - not allowed - due to the myth of atheistic persecution by Christians and Christian persecuting society with such nonsense as thou shall not commit premeditated murder, not slander, not covet, honor parents, love one another...love God.

I haven't told anyone that they have no right to do anything, and even if I had I don't hold a position of authority so it wouldn't matter. Please, pretty please, stop putting words in my mouth.

I also haven't called anyone stupid, apart from that one stupid guy in Arizona. Remember him? He got a permit to build a game room, then he built a church with seating for 100 people but no fire exits, then he advertised his church in local media and held two services a week with up to 80 people in attendance, and finally, when the neighbors complained about traffic and parking issues and the city investigated he howled about how he was being persecuted for holding a small Bible study? That guy is a moron, and he deserved his fines and jail time. Although I'm sure you disagree, since you cited his story as an example of anti-Christian persecution 5 different times.

I've definitely called some folks out on fabricating stories, but only after I did some research and determined that they were, in fact, fabrications. The evidence is there to be seen, provided a rational observer opts to look.

Edward or Gumby, Christians do not like, or support, the idea of murder of the unborn and selling fetal baby parts under the disguise of woman's right to choose as you do. Neither do we support the exploitation of women's reproduction rights for lobbyist to use abortion monies to fund democrat’s election campaigns and dupe women to be simply many sexual one night stands. Christians do not view human beings in the same class as animals either.

Wow, you really think everybody has a sinister angle don't you? Apart from yourself, I mean. Your motives are pure, so it's completely justifiable to be slimy and dishonest about trying to achieve them. I'm not going to bother unpacking all of the insulting assumptions you're making about me, or about women, for that matter. You're an angry guy, but I think you were that way long before I showed up.

Also, I have to say that my BS detector goes completely bonkers whenever I hear someone talk about what Christians like, support, believe or whatever, as if they speak for the entire religion. There are 200 million Christians in the United States. They're a diverse group with a wide range of beliefs about a wide range of issues, and you are not their spokesman.

Nor do we Christians support the exploitation of minorities’ populations for abortion purposes under the disuse of sexual Education and population control as so stated by Margaret Sanger the Founder of Planned Parenthood:

Way to snag a soundbite from 100 years ago and act like it has anything whatsoever to do with Planned Parenthood's current goals or policies.

Next, we Christians would like to teach our children not to make the same mistakes we made before becoming Christians so they do not have to deal with the psychological and physical problems caused by sexual immortality - why is this a great evil to you? Why is that such a great evil for us to warn the world about the effects of this too? What is wrong with monogamy that we must be silenced?

When did I ever call anything evil? Why do you find it necessary to put words in my mouth? Is this what you consider an honest exchange?

Ok, on to "sexual immorality." I don't know what you mean by the term. Feel free to clarify.

I don't recall saying that it was evil of you to warn the world about the supposed threat of "sexual immorality," whatever that means, but at the same time you need to understand that what the rest of us do in our bedrooms is none of your business and if you start throwing judgements around you might just get told off.

If you're talking about abstinence-only education, I don't know that I'd call it evil, just ineffective. Although now that I think about it, I suppose there is a degree of evil in the act of trying to force others to adopt ineffective methods of sex education because it lines up with your own ideology.

We Christians do not support the use of slandering lies that dehumanize another. Why is this a crime to you and the left? Why is this practiced against Christians and conservatives daily in the USA in the halls of academia, journalism, media, movies, books, legislation, judicial activism, and IRS targeting? What crime did we commit by not supporting slander and the taking of another goods under the disguise of governmental enforced social justice?

Yep, I'm always ranting on about how criminal it is for Christians not to use slandering lies to dehumanize others. Oh, wait, no I'm not. You made that up, too. The rest of this paragraph is just whining. Today's religious conservative mouthpieces love to dish it out, but they sure can't take it. You're a great example of the phenomenon.

No, guess what, through circular logic you will claim that you think in certain cases murder, slanderous lying, the coveting and taking of another goods through re-distribution is wrong. But do you really? Why do you seek to destroy Christians rights to express themselves publicly and openly? Why is such expression deemed a crime by you?

Huh?

So what crimes have we Christians committed against society? Please list them...

This is inefficient. Why not just tell me what crimes I think Christians have committed against society, then condemn me for thinking it, then get all outraged about it? It's not like you're listening to me anyway, so why not drop the pretense?

Was it because Christian led the way in the abolition of slavery, woman suffrage is Voting rights, the civil rights movement? Were these things such great evil to the atheist progressive socialist secularist agenda? Do we, Ed, enslave minorities to inner city ghetto areas, keeping them impoverished, ignorant, easily controlled for the fact of garnering (canvassing) votes by use of fear tactics? Who is doing that? Coffee is on - smell it yet

Christians were prominent on both sides of the slavery, suffrage, and civil rights movements. I'll absolutely give credit where it's due, but I'm not going to sit by while you revise history to suit your purposes. "No true Scotsman" fallacy in 3...2...1...

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you could clearly explain just what the "atheist progressive socialist secularist agenda" entails. I suspect that you're just pulling buzzwords out of a dictionary that you wrote yourself, but if you actually have some sort of coherent idea I'd be interested to hear it.

Mr. Ed, you stated you desired a dialog - if you do please list our Crimes against humanity and the need to silence Christianity and to prevent Christians from defending themselves against legal moves such as the 501 3 c ruling which prevents Christians from having a political voice from the pulpit in exchange with tax exemption? Is not that an abridgment against free speech?

I've already told you that I support 501(3)(c), and I've told you why. If you want to know more then find the post. I'm sick of repeating myself.

Regarding the crimes against humanity, since you seem to be implying that I made that accusation, and since I have no recollection of doing so, this is another instance when you should just take both sides of the conversation and run with it.

Where are the laws that force you to go to church? Say the pledge? What laws are so oppressive to you that we support by imposing legal fiat? Maybe we like peace and civility more than you do, and in fact more than you think or ever dare admit too.

You need to proof-read better. That sentence made no sense.

Others asked this question - Why are you here?

It is apparent that it is not about dialog for if it really was - you could prove Christians enacting laws that take away atheist right not to believe in God or else face some sort of legal sanction.

That's another non sequitur. Also, I already gave you a list of states where atheists can't legally hold public office. A couple of times, actually.

All that Christians really do is present the gospel of Jesus Christ for one to accept or reject. If enough folks accept the message society is persevered healthy, if rejected by society, together we all gain turmoil, insecurity, rise of true enemies, open practices of depravity, and our own ruin and destruction ensured as things are currently heading in the USA.

According to conservative Christians. In reality the most peaceful, stable, and secure societies in the world are actually the least religious.

Why is this so evil to you?

I never said it was, so I'm not sure. Feel free to tell me.

[B. W.]

Unenforceable ban on atheists holding public office remains unenforceable... Unenforceable is not exactly discrimination is it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/in ... -ban-.html

Now on to this matter...

http://abc13.com/news/pastors-sue-mayor ... ed/900044/

Cuts both ways... Christians need to defend themselves on such legal matters

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08 ... -trampled/

Have a nice day
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Unenforceable ban on atheists holding public office remains unenforceable... Unenforceable is not exactly discrimination is it?

The 501(3)(c) ban on political speech from the pulpit is unenforced and most likely unenforceable, but you still claim that it's persecution. Careful, your double standard is showing. Again.

Anyway, there was a time it was enforced. Who knows, if a couple more conservatives make it to the SCOTUS maybe it will be enforceable, and therefore enforced, again. I doubt it, but the fact remains that it's on the books. American Christians have never had to put up with laws like that.

Now on to this matter...

Cuts both ways... Christians need to defend themselves on such legal matters

I'm happy to see that you've finally dropped your absurd persecution argument and accepted that we can all use the courts and turnabout is fair play. Bravo, B.W. You've come a long way.

By the way, I'm not sure why you keep posting multiple articles that say the same thing, but I wish you'd stop.

[B. W.]

Why stop...

Articles by different sources are legit... We win some and lose some too.

What you are missing is that Christians are not just going to role over and vanish according to the whims of militant atheist and hostile local and federal govt policy, laws, ordinances based upon a misapplication of the 1st Amendment. I and others shown you many articles to support infractions against Christians in the USA and then you cite laws to justify such hostile actions.

Do you really want to deny the IRS targeting scandal with the Graham Ministries and others? Or deny the other recorded infractions against Christians heating up in the USA? We win some cases and lose others. So folks will not stop posting articles from differing sources to appease you. All persecution begins someplace and begins commonly with enforceable laws that take slow steps toward promoting increasing hostility. While this country is still free, Christians are not going to roll over to the erosion of religious liberty and the destruction of our freedom of expression and conscience.

Ed, you come across as desiring to shut up Christians as well as its complete silent eradication and for that is why I am so in your face. You stop that, and maybe you might learn something decent. Other than that, stop with the insults as well too, that is two so far directed at me personally which violates forum rules. Despite what people think about moderators here, we display lots of grace and grant folks enough space to vent. When lines are being crossed continuously and repeatably, then we act. You are a guest here. If I came as a guest to your house I would not insult the host. Show respect / receive respect.

Lastly. you are not coming across as desiring to learn anything decent at all. You also come across as condescending and hostile so bent on a mission to bash all things christian, all based upon militant atheist Christianphobic bigotry. Others see this as well, therefore, no sense wasting time in dialogue with you since your mind is made up. Again this forum might not be for you ...

Have a nice day
-
-
-



City of Houston wants to bulldoze one Black church, condemn another

[edwardmurphy]

Why stop...

Articles by different sources are legit...

Sure they're legit, but if they all say the same thing they're also redundant. I'm asking you not to post redundant articles.

What you are missing is that Christians are not just going to role over and vanish according to the whims of militant atheist and hostile local and federal govt policy, laws, ordinances based upon a misapplication of the 1st Amendment. I and others shown you many articles to support infractions against Christians in the USA and then you cite laws to justify such hostile actions.

You're trying to change my position without me noticing. I never said that conservative Christians don't have the right to fight against perceived persecution. Of course they have that right. What I said was that most of their arguments are ridiculous and I have yet to see any convincing evidence of persecution.

At this point I will add that their claims frequently seem hyperbolic, their outrage often seems manufactured, and the more the shout the less people take them seriously. B.W., a lot of the articles you linked contained claims that were false, misleading, or flat-out stupid. In each case I provided a detailed explanation of why I thought so, including linked evidence. You never responded to a single one. Not once. You just kept on telling me about all of the articles you'd linked, as if I was somehow unaware of them. That's disingenuous at best.

Do you really want to deny the IRS targeting scandal with the Graham Ministries and others?

I haven't looked deeply into the allegation, but if Graham Ministries was violating 501(3)(c) then I guess they had it coming. Were they? Long story short, it sounds like politics as usual. It's a dirty business.

Or deny the other recorded infractions against Christians heating up in the USA?

If you're talking about the stuff you've already cited, then yes, I absolutely deny them.

If you have an example of a law prohibiting Christians from serving as elected officials or testifying in court, or an example of a state where two consenting adults can't legally get married because they're Christians, or a place where it's legal to fire someone for being Christian then please post it.

We win some cases and lose others. So folks will not stop posting articles from differing sources to appease you. All persecution begins someplace and begins commonly with enforceable laws that take slow steps toward promoting increasing hostility. While this country is still free, Christians are not going to roll over to the erosion of religious liberty and the destruction of our freedom of expression and conscience.

First off, it's not "folks." It's you. Just you. Second, my objection is that you're posting links to 2-3 articles that all say the same thing about the same people involved in the same incident. If an article doesn't add anything new then there's no point linking to it.

Ed, you come across as desiring to shut up Christians as well as its complete silent eradication and for that is why I am so in your face. You stop that, and maybe you might learn something decent.

B.W., I'm involved in a couple of interesting, informative, civil conversations here with people who are not you. Those conversations are civil in large part because those people don't call me Mr. Ed, accuse me of having some sinister agenda, or waste my time with endless, redundant links to stories they don't appear to have read themselves.

Frankly, you have no idea what I know because you pegged me as a radical, militant, liberal, progressive, atheist, socialist agent provocateur the instant I started posting and all you've done since is put words in my mouth. You are correct that I am a politically and socially progressive atheist, but that still doesn't help you understand me because you have no idea what those words actually mean. To you they're just insults to be hurled at anyone who doesn't see the world the same way that you do and has the audacity to admit it.

Other than that, stop with the insults as well too, that is two so far directed at me personally which violates forum rules. Despite what people think about moderators here, we display lots of grace and grant folks enough space to vent. When lines are being crossed continuously and repeatably, then we act.

There's that double standard again. You can sneer at me, insult me, accuse me of all kinds of ridiculous charges, waste my time with silly claims, ignore any evidence that I post to refute them, put words in my mouth, and then act like I've crossed some sort of line? Sorry, but as far as I can tell, under your mantle of self-righteousness and your moderator hat there lurks a run-of-the-mill forum troll.

You are a guest here. If I came as a guest to your house I would not insult the host. Show respect / receive respect.

If you came to my house as a guest I wouldn't call you names, cast dispersion on what I assumed were your beliefs, put words in your mouth and then demand that you justify them, and deliberately irritate you until you did finally insult me, and then smugly lecture you on how a guest ought to behave. I guess we do things differently, you and I.

Lastly. you are not coming across as desiring to learn anything decent at all. You also come across as condescending and hostile so bent on a mission to bash all things christian, all based upon militant atheist Christianphobic bigotry. Others see this as well, therefore, no sense wasting time in dialogue with you since your mind is made up. Again this forum might not be for you ...

Which others? Has there been a meeting? As far as I can tell, apart from a bit of a dust-up with FI, I've gotten along just fine with everybody except you. I don't feel at all hostile toward anyone but you. I've learned some things from people other than you. My problem isn't with this forum, or with the Christian religion, or with conservative values, it's with you.