 
|
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 09/27/06 - 21:26 Post subject:
| copteacher wrote: | | a lot of these family values you say are Christian are common in many other faiths too. Try Judiaism and Islam for instance. Both have some very conservative "value" leanings. |
Yes, but by and large they keep their religious beliefs in their church and home. They don't try codefying their beliefs for those of us who see things differently.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/27/06 - 21:28 Post subject:
and the very rights the Christians try to codify are also being trying to be codified by the secularist too. You can't have it both ways. That is what politics is about. Now about 25% of the GOP is made up of evangelicals, many of them old time southern dems, disgruntled with that party.
|
|
|
|
|
brie k
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 5661
Location: where the wild things are
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/27/06 - 22:02 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: |
<snip>
But don't worry. I'm still a Southern Baptist, whether Charles Stanley appreciates or not. I only have to answer to God for my actions and we have had this discussion many times. |
Ah, see, that is exactly the point, IMO. So we have all these "Christians" (whether they are or not is not something for me to decide) making decisions based on what THEY feel they must answer for when they meet their Creator. So if someone has that firm belief that their faith doesn't allow <insert belief here>, then standing firm by not passing legislation on one thing or passing it on another is their way of going to Heaven with a good conscience.
At least, that's what I think, and I may very well be wrong about people's motives. 
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/27/06 - 22:04 Post subject:
| copteacher wrote: | | and the very rights the Christians try to codify are also being trying to be codified by the secularist too. You can't have it both ways. That is what politics is about. Now about 25% of the GOP is made up of evangelicals, many of them old time southern dems, disgruntled with that party. |
Permitting a woman to exercise her pro choice options due to a secular law does not harm the church or the woman. The restrictions on a woman's right to choose due to religious interference in secular laws does harm the woman and and any others wishing to exercise pro-choice or event planned family counseling.
In the case of gays (and I"ll only address Georgia as I live here) until 1997 anyone could be arrested in their house for engaging in same sex practices. And it wasn't the kindness of the Christian Church that at least took Georgia law enforcement out of gay bedrooms. It was the Supreme Court of the State who deemed the Sodomy laws violated privacy rights of gay men and lesbian women. Once again this secular law in no way harms any Christian Church, including Fred Phelps. Within their church I fully support them discriminating against anyone they wish. But until 1997 many gays were arrested for having same sex, a law that was on the books specifically due to the Christian Church.
Until 1980 there were a few Southern Baptist Churches that openly welcomed gays into their membership. With the advent of the Conservative movement led by Charles Stanley, Southern Baptist Churches had to expel those members or be expelled themselves. So much for Christian love.
And being a Southern Baptist I have great resentment toward Charles Stanley and other conservative Christians in general who so perverted the Bible for their own bigotry. In his church or house fine. But historically each Baptist Church has always been free to determine how they accepted members - smokers, beer drinkers, some would let you dance and other's wouldn't. Sin was between you and God. Now the Southern Baptist Church has a dogma, which is what we so criticized the Catholic Church for when I was growing up and very active in the SBC until I was 18.
So I do look at conservative Christians as having destroyed a lot of things I considered holy and inspiring and the word of God. Once again keep their religious laws off secular laws and we'll be fine.
One of the few Christians I consider a man of God is Billy Graham. I still listen to some of his old tapes.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/28/06 - 13:42 Post subject:
Sorry, I just have to interject here on a technical point. Wasn't it that Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick in 2003? Bowers was the case in GA in which your state supreme court held that sodomy between two consenting men was illegal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed but then overruled it in Lawrence. So I'm not getting where you're saying it ended in GA in 1997. It didn't end in GA (or TX or anywhere else) until 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/28/06 - 13:52 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Sorry, I just have to interject here on a technical point. Wasn't it that Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick in 2003? Bowers was the case in GA in which your state supreme court held that sodomy between two consenting men was illegal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed but then overruled it in Lawrence. So I'm not getting where you're saying it ended in GA in 1997. It didn't end in GA (or TX or anywhere else) until 2003. |
The Georgia State Supreme Court struck down the State's sodomy laws between consenting adults on November 23, 1998 on the grounds it violated the privacy rights of Georgia citizens.
Keep in mind I'm only referring to the State of Georgia. The Texas case in 2003 did not affect Georgia to my knowledge, at least from a practical standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
brie k
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 5661
Location: where the wild things are
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/28/06 - 17:08 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Sorry, I just have to interject here on a technical point. Wasn't it that Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick in 2003? Bowers was the case in GA in which your state supreme court held that sodomy between two consenting men was illegal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed but then overruled it in Lawrence. So I'm not getting where you're saying it ended in GA in 1997. It didn't end in GA (or TX or anywhere else) until 2003. |
Powell v. State[/i] (1998) overturned Bowers. Lawrence affected most of the remaining states (if not all) who still had that type of statute.
We're actually talking about these cases in a couple of my classes this semester.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/28/06 - 20:28 Post subject:
| brie k wrote: | .
.. So if someone has that firm belief that their faith doesn't allow <insert belief here>, then standing firm by not passing legislation on one thing or passing it on another is their way of going to Heaven with a good conscience.
|
But they shouldn't be basing legislation by what they think gets them into Heaven. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on one specific interpretation of one specific spiritual text/
|
|
|
|
|
brie k
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 5661
Location: where the wild things are
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/28/06 - 21:22 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | brie k wrote: | .
.. So if someone has that firm belief that their faith doesn't allow <insert belief here>, then standing firm by not passing legislation on one thing or passing it on another is their way of going to Heaven with a good conscience.
|
But they shouldn't be basing legislation by what they think gets them into Heaven. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on one specific interpretation of one specific spiritual text/ |
I respectfully disagree. If I am a politician, and I firmly believe with all my heart that my Creator is against abortion, for instance, then I'm not going to be in favor of abortion, nor will I support any legislation that is pro abortion. In my mind, in this scenario (and I do not claim to know what the politicians really believe), supporting abortion can send ME to hell.
And then we can discuss war, or gay rights, or whatever, and what those issues mean to a soul. See, I don't have all the answers, and certainly would never claim to. I just see that in myself, I support what I support, stand firm against those things that go against my beliefs. Were I a politician, I'd do the same thing because I have to answer to God, ultimately. I am a sinner. I am flawed. This doesn't mean I have to further the agendas of certain politicians because some people think that there is no place in government for God. I'd believe that if our forefathers didn't speak about a creator in our earliest documents, and if our currency didn't say "In God We Trust". I do not believe, nor will I ever, that the separation of church and state had anything to do with taking God out of our government and our schools. Our forefathers may not believe exactly what a modern-day Christian (not that I think there is a hard, steadfast definition of this) believe, but I do think many had some sort of spiritual thoughts.
And for the record, so we don't get all political about this (preemptive, so forgive me please), I'm not a Bush supporter. This has nothing to do with party alliance, but rather my spiritual well-being. And like I said, I don't know what motives people have. This is all conjecture, really. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, though. It's the different opinions that make life so interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/29/06 - 05:37 Post subject:
| brie k wrote: | | But they shouldn't be basing legislation by what they think gets them into Heaven. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on one specific interpretation of one specific spiritual text/ |
I respectfully disagree. If I am a politician, and I firmly believe with all my heart that my Creator is against abortion, for instance, then I'm not going to be in favor of abortion, nor will I support any legislation that is pro abortion. In my mind, in this scenario (and I do not claim to know what the politicians really believe), supporting abortion can send ME to hell. [/quote]
But you can follow your Biblical beliefs without forcing them on those who do not believe as you do. If you are a legislator you are not promoting pro-abortion legislation for you and your family if that is your belief. But you are permitting others to make their own choice. Do you not think the 9/11 hijackers fervently believed in their enforcement of the Koran as you do the Bible? What is the difference between their line of thinking of doing God's (Allah's) work and what you advocate by voting your religion on people that don't beleive the way you do.
Within your house, church, or synagogue I don't have a problem with whatever belief system you wish to enforce. Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, or whomever is the head of the Islamic faith, don't bother me in the least with their sermons or practices in their church. But once they take their religion outside of the Church there is no difference between them, the Taliban, Al Quaeda or any other group that desires to force their beliefs on others.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/29/06 - 06:20 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | brie k wrote: | | But they shouldn't be basing legislation by what they think gets them into Heaven. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on one specific interpretation of one specific spiritual text/ |
I respectfully disagree. If I am a politician, and I firmly believe with all my heart that my Creator is against abortion, for instance, then I'm not going to be in favor of abortion, nor will I support any legislation that is pro abortion. In my mind, in this scenario (and I do not claim to know what the politicians really believe), supporting abortion can send ME to hell. |
But you can follow your Biblical beliefs without forcing them on those who do not believe as you do. If you are a legislator you are not promoting pro-abortion legislation for you and your family if that is your belief. But you are permitting others to make their own choice. Do you not think the 9/11 hijackers fervently believed in their enforcement of the Koran as you do the Bible? What is the difference between their line of thinking of doing God's (Allah's) work and what you advocate by voting your religion on people that don't beleive the way you do.
Within your house, church, or synagogue I don't have a problem with whatever belief system you wish to enforce. Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, or whomever is the head of the Islamic faith, don't bother me in the least with their sermons or practices in their church. But once they take their religion outside of the Church there is no difference between them, the Taliban, Al Quaeda or any other group that desires to force their beliefs on others.[/quote]
Uh the difference would be that Brie would be working thru the legal channels of getting herself elected to a public office and legislating. She probably would have been elected because a majority of voters agreed with her views. The 9/11 hijackers flew jets into crowded buildings and killed thousands of people. I see a very big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/29/06 - 07:21 Post subject:
| robp wrote: | | Uh the difference would be that Brie would be working thru the legal channels of getting herself elected to a public office and legislating. She probably would have been elected because a majority of voters agreed with her views. The 9/11 hijackers flew jets into crowded buildings and killed thousands of people. I see a very big difference. |
And do you have any doubt the majority of people in Iran or probably most of the Middle East don't agree with the 9/11 hi-jacker's views in the name of their politics and religion? The majority of voters in the South at one time agreed with segregationist politicans in part due to their religious views at the time. Do you think blacks want the State of Georgia even today voting whether or not they should be free to marry a member of another race or ethnic group?
As a country where do you think we would be today concerning civil rights for anyone other than white males if the courts had not stepped in to prevent the tyranny of the majority? In today's atmosphere a politician stands a better chance of winning an election campaigning against someone else's civil rights based on their religion. But I have a sneaking suspicion Jesus is rolling his eyes and thinking of those who are about to suffer as a result.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/29/06 - 08:51 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | copteacher wrote: | | a lot of these family values you say are Christian are common in many other faiths too. Try Judiaism and Islam for instance. Both have some very conservative "value" leanings. |
Yes, but by and large they keep their religious beliefs in their church and home. They don't try codefying their beliefs for those of us who see things differently. |
Right....
Try being a Jew in any Saudi Arabia (or any number of other Middle Eastern countries)....
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/29/06 - 09:30 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | brie k wrote: | .
.. So if someone has that firm belief that their faith doesn't allow <insert belief here>, then standing firm by not passing legislation on one thing or passing it on another is their way of going to Heaven with a good conscience.
|
But they shouldn't be basing legislation by what they think gets them into Heaven. Our laws aren't supposed to be based on one specific interpretation of one specific spiritual text/ |
I may have to go slit my wrists for agreeing with CB.... 
I have one of the more unconventional religions here, and I would never expect US or State Law to be based on my religion...and your all lucky cuz scalping would be a legal punishment... 
We have seen way too much of what happens when laws are written based on any one religion. Look at the bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the killing between the various Muslim factions.
No one religion should have the corner market on the legal system. In fact, according to the Constitution, religion is not supposed to have any influence on our laws.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/29/06 - 10:33 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Try being a Jew in any Saudi Arabia (or any number of other Middle Eastern countries).... |
But I'm not talking about being a Jew in Saudi Arabia. I'm talking about being a Jew in the United States. Since I don't live in the ME I'm more concerned with how religious groups attempt to codify their beliefs affect Americans at the moment. When I move to Saudi Arabia I'll confront the Royal Family about their gay rights policies. I wonder when the last time an American citizen was beheaded in Saudi Arabia. 
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
