All us radicals are the same

So, Rosie O'Donnell told The View that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." She is screaming what so many on the atheistic left have been thinking or whispering for some time now.

According to her and most other leftist, we have the makings of a Christian theocracy here in the United States through the presidency of George W. Bush. "The theocrats are running the country" claim countless left-wing blog posts. If the Religious Right is in control and are just as evil as radical Islam, how can Rosie say what she said without being killed? How can Rosie be who she is without being killed?

What does Rosie think of a national leader, while speaking to students at Harvard, claiming that it is "debatable" as to whether homosexuals should be put to death for their sexual orientation. I'm sure she would scream at the top of her lungs about how the evil Christians have forced their morality on this nation. Seperation of church and state has been violated by this speech even being allowed.

Don't expect Rosie to mention it on The View tomorrow because it was said by Mohammad Khatami, the former "reformist" Iranian president, in a speech entitled "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence (that has to be the most Orwellian title ever).

He downplayed the death penalty for being gay by saying the conditions for execution are so strict that they are "virtually impossible to meet." Seems the impossible happens fairly frequently in Iran. Just last year two teenage boys were publicly hanged for homosexuality, after they were held in prison for 14 months and lashed 228 times.

I wait on "conservatives" like Andrew Sullivan and liberals like Rosie O'Donnell to attack these comments with at least as much fervor as they do at allegations of torture from terrorists detainees or citizens supporting the state marriage amendments.

Does Rosie mind these since they are not the cause of evil Christians and don't really affect American millionaires like her? Love songs on the radio are outlawed. Cats and dogs as pets are outlawed. Christians drinking water from a public well is outlawed. Building churches other than Muslims ones is outlawed. European nations are catching the Sharia law fever.

But don't worry about that Muslim man hold the box cutter on tha airplane. No, be careful to do something to stop that Christian holding the voting ballot.

Comments

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

I know this is confusing for you, but the likes of Khatami shouldn't be particularly threatening to America, because there is a microscopic chance that he would ever come to power here. Compare that with the reality of conservative Christians, who routinely united to legally enshrine hatred of gays. That's more threatening to the freedom of Americans.

I know this makes no sense to you, but there are actually OTHER Americans who value their freedom as much as you do, and when it is legally taken away by a horde of gay hating bigots, they find that hard to stomach. Particularly in a country that's as freedom loving as America.

But, again, I acknowledge that this is hard for you to understand. Nobody is proposing that your relationship with your wife become legally second class, and worthless. Nobody is proposing that you shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Nobody is proposing that it should be legal to deny you housing, based upon your significant other.

[Cineaste]

From the article...

There are two points to be made here. First, apparently Rosie believes that the federal government is a branch of "radical Christianity."

She's correct, the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right. The word conservative today has an altogether different meaning than it did 35 years ago. Now it means "religious zealot." Examples: Santorum, Frist, DeLay, and that religious wacko, Katherine Harris.

Secondly, has she never heard of World War II and the innocent civilians that unfortunately died in the struggle against Nazism? Was that war wrong?

Aaron the above sounds like your reasoning below...

I value human life and believe it the intrinsic worth for each individual, but I also know that sometimes people die for a good cause and just because some people die that does not invalidate the cause.

My response which you still have not addressed...

I am glad to see you have the fortitude to let thousands of people die for your cause (and like minded compassionate conservatives) but I ask you, what exactly was our cause in going to war in Iraq and does this cause still apply today? Do you think the Iraqi's, who are the people actually dying, share your cause? How many more people need to die then before the cause is invalidated? Unlimited?

I agree with Rosie's statements but I go even further. I would say that teaching religious superstition (and this applies to both Islam and Christianity, though maybe not Buddhism) is generating misconceptions and hatred between cultures. The only solution is to provide all children with a secular education so that they have a wider word view and are more tolerant. I.E. teach them freedom of religion rather than "my religion is true and yours is false."

I watched that video of the 3 1/2 year old Muslim girl being brainwashed by her religion to hate Jews and then I see video's of Christian parents brainwashing their kids with biblical scripture to hate gays (Fred Phelps) and I can't help but notice a parallel.

[seeker]

I watched that video of the 3 1/2 year old Muslim girl being brainwashed by her religion to hate Jews and then I see video's of Christian parents brainwashing their kids with biblical scripture to hate gays (Fred Phelps) and I can't help but notice a parallel.
The difference is, Fred Phelps represents a fringe minority, while the Muslim training you saw is mainstream. There are many other differences in intensity and mortal danger involved here, but you refuse to acknowledge them.

I am sure that the "threat" of Christendom *feels* dangerous and real to you, but your feelings don't represent reality, they represent how fear-mongering and politically-motivated exaggerations and hyperbolic rhetoric become fact in the minds of the easily brainwashed. It's the chicken little syndrome.

The real threats against liberty are secular and Islamic fundamentalism - the former wants to eliminate religion in the name of humanity and science, while the latter wants to enslave it to religion under the sword. Christianity desires neither, but rather, is the sole remaining champion of liberty, along with other moderate thinkers who recognize the importance of faith and Christianity in the public square, and who also understand its limits with respect to policy.

Secularists and religionists like the Christian Reconstructionists, Radical Muslims (which are in many ways mainstream muslims, not fringe) are the extremists of our day, threatening our liberty and freedom while thinking they are doing us all a favor.

[Cineaste]

Seeker, what a pathetic reply. You did not address my points (except the one below), you simply spewed unsupported assertions in an poor effort to twist the arguments I made. Can you please give a better reply? I honestly don't think you put much thought in your last one.

Fred Phelps represents a fringe minority, while the Muslim training you saw is mainstream.

What do you base this on? That was a "radical" Muslim girl. As far as Fred Phelps, you agree with him about gays, "gays are going to Hell." Phelps is just more radical in voicing this belief than you.

[seeker]

As far as Fred Phelps, you agree with him about gays, "gays are going to Hell." Phelps is just more radical in voicing this belief than you.

Again, I am sorry that you can't tell the difference between phelphs and mainstream Christianity.

There are many possible reasons why you keep making these illogical comparisons, and then wondering why I think such stoopidness is part of the problem of extremism and fear-mongering in our day:

- You may believe in the slippery slope idea that if you give Christians the little they are asking for, it will be no time before the Reconstructionists take over and start executing gays (like they do in Islamic countries today).
- A little bit of negative moral judgment from Christians, in your mind, may be the harbinger of pogroms to come. But again, this is just irrational, unsupported extrapolation.
- You buy into the illogic that if two people share one value in common, that they share other values in common, and share methods for implementing those values

This last error is what you do when you compare me to Phelps. Sure, we both agree that homosexuality is sin, and that gays (like all sinners who have not turned to God) are going to hell. Now, can you tell me the difference between us? If you can't, I'd say that you are not being honest, or you just don't have the information. If you can't even guess, I'd say it's that you are not really interested in decontructing your shallow comparison. So we can stop talking about it.

Fred Phelps represents a fringe minority, while the Muslim training you saw is mainstream. What do you base this on?

I suppose you could say that westerners who "can't see the difference between Islam and Islamic radicals," and that is in some ways a fair criticism, but in others, it is not.

How many Christians killed gays in the last week? None that I know of. How many Islamist murders happened this week? 272 murdered, over 600 critically injured.

The fact is, there are many, many more adherents to Wahabi and other sects of radical Islam - I mean, they elected one as a president in Iran. They execute gays in Saudi Arabia, too, I believe. How many Fred Phelps are in Christian leadership today, that advocate killing gays, or even criminalizing it? James Dobson, Jerry Fallwell, James Kennedy, the Family Research Council, Gary Demar, or any Republicans? NONE that I know of.

All may support legislation preventing the official sanction of homosexuality, but none are pushing for criminalization or the death penalty, that I know of.

Again, I truly do not believe that Christians are any threat to democracy or freedom, but are actually the agents OF them. I believe that the secularists and amoralists pose one kind of threat to society, and the extremists on the other side, the Islamists and Christian Reconstructionists form a threat of theocracy on the other. I don't buy the liberal panic regarding Christians. To me, it is chicken little syndrome. I try to ignore it, because it is noisesome.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Seeker,

Those people would HAPPILY jail gays given half the opportunity. And otherwise, I'm not having this argument. If you really believe that Christianity represents forward thinking humanity, you're actually insane. Christianity represents repression for all non-following, non-Christians. Hell, it represents repression for actual Christians.

[Cineaste]

Again, I am sorry that you can't tell the difference between Phelps and mainstream Christianity.

I can tell the difference between Phelps and mainstream Christianity, but what is the difference between Phelps and fundamentalist Christianity? I think that you and Aaron are "fundamentalist Christians" though Phelps must be even further to the right than you guys. The information I have about Phelps is that he thinks gays are going to Hell and he protests at military funerals.

- You may believe in the slippery slope idea that if you give Christians the little they are asking for, it will be no time before the Reconstructionists take over and start executing gays (like they do in Islamic countries today).

Mainstream Christians like FCL, don't seem to be asking for anything. It's the fundamentalists who seek creationism in schools, denouncement of gays as immoral, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, Same sex marriage laws, etc. This describes you and Aaron for sure and I swear that's not asking for a "little," it's asking for a hell of a lot. The “little” you ask for will set Western Civilization back 200 years to the Victorian era.

This last error is what you do when you compare me to Phelps. Sure, we both agree that homosexuality is sin, and that gays (like all sinners who have not turned to God) are going to hell. Now, can you tell me the difference between us? If you can't, I'd say that you are not being honest, or you just don't have the information.

Seeker, I think and I hope, you are a better person than Phelps. That’s the difference. You have admitted the similarity, that you have the same view concerning gays, which I find disturbing because it’s so radical.

How many Christians killed gays in the last week? None that I know of. How many Islamist murders happened this week? 272 murdered, over 600 critically injured.

Okay, I think you are missing my point. My point is this. Fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity Have these in common.

1. They both take the Bible/Koran literally.
2. They both indoctrinate their children into their literal interpretations of the Koran/Bible at a very young age.
3. They both believe that their own religion is true while other religions, and even those with no religion, are false.

Now, based on these 3 facts, we can conclude

1. Literal interpretation of the Bible/Koran differs from, and within Christianity/Islam; hence you have Shiite/Sunni/Protestant/Catholic.
2. Christian/Islamic followers hold their beliefs zealously, to the point where you can't convince them that their own religion may be false.
3. Christian/Islamic religious beliefs are incompatible with one another. A person must be one or the other, not both. And, each thinks followers of the other is going to Hell.

So, I think a little secularism would do wonders for the world view of fundamentalist Christians/Muslims. It may teach them a little more tolerance. If that little 3 1/2 year old Muslim girl was taught that Jews are not immoral and if Fred Phelps was taught that Gays are not immoral, then I think the world have less hate in it.

I don't buy the liberal panic regarding Christians. To me, it is chicken little syndrome. I try to ignore it, because it is noisesome.

You mean noisome? This is not surprising. You are programmed to think as you do by your faith, just as all religious fundamentalists are. If you deviate from your faith the punishment is eternal damnation, you have no choice but to "tow the religious line" and believe exactly what you are told to believe in Biblical/Koran scripture.

I truly do not believe that Christians are any threat to democracy or freedom, but are actually the agents OF them.

If Christianity is against Secularism then I would definitely say that Christianity is not an agent of democracy or freedom, but an opponent. Religion = Superstition. Superstition = Ignorance. Ignorance = Hatred. Hatred = enemy of freedom and democracy.

[tim]

Yesterday Democratic primary voters in the 5th district of Minnesota voted for a person who is a devout muslim to send to congress. He believes in full marriage rights for GLBT. If 20 years of history are indication - he is a shoe in to be elected (the rest of the field is largely libertian including the republican candidate). Having not escaped controversy himself - he has shown he can think for himself and articulate a message that are sometimes at odds with his own party.

In the 6th district of Minnesota - Republican primary voters voted for a devout christian to send to congress. This person has introduced - time and time again at the expense of more pressing matters - legislation in the Minnesota Legislature to limit the rights of GLBT crowd. Ever time I hear her speak - its the same talking points over and over and straight from the Republican talking sheet. That race is a toss up.

For the record - I wouldn't vote for either of them - but I find that comparison very interesting. Especially in the light of seekers skewed vision of the world...

[seeker]

You have admitted the similarity, that you have the same view concerning gays, which I find disturbing because it’s so radical.
And what idea do you find radical? That homosexuality is a sin? I have news for you, but this has been the standard for thousands of years, and still lines up with what many, perhaps most people believe (depending on how you ask the question). So thinking homosexuality is morally OK is really the radical idea.

Or do you think that thinking gays will go to hell is radical and scary? Guess what? Adulterers, liars, theives, the promiscuous, the covetous, and the prideful will too. That's not news either. Standard Christian doctrine is that without repentance and faith towards God, all will end up in hell because all have sinned. So no one is singling out gays as uniquely sinful.

Or maybe you find the idea that "you can't be a Christian and be gay" is radical. This is only half true. Since salvation is not based on behavior, but on faith in the work of Christ, it is conceivable that a homosexual could be saved, just as much as the promiscuous hetero. However, those who continue in these sins and justify them are at best stumbling and deceived in their view of God and faith, and at worst, don't have saving faith at all because they lack the evidence of being changed. But they don't have to prove it to anyone, they just need to check themselves. And those practicing these larger sins are certainly biblically excluded from church leadership. But is a gay person automatically going to hell? Not necessecarily.

Especially in the light of seekers skewed vision of the world...
So tim, enlighten us on what your liberal fear-mongering brainwashers have made you think my vision for the world is.

You mean noisome?
Yes. It is noisesome because it is repeated so often. It's a broken record, a boy crying wolf, a child whining about not getting to have candy all day - wish I had more metaphors for why liberal exaggerations, illegitimate and hyperbolic comparisons, and alarmist scare tactics are just not worth listening to.

[Cineaste]

Seeker, maybe substituting the word "Judaism" for "Homosexuality" in your argument will illustrate the comparison for you. By doing this, you sound just like a fundamentalist Muslim.

And what idea do you find radical? That Judaism is a sin? I have news for you, but this has been the standard for thousands of years, and still lines up with what many, perhaps most people believe (depending on how you ask the question). So thinking Judaism is morally OK is really the radical idea.

Or do you think that thinking Jews will go to hell is radical and scary? Guess what? Adulterers, liars, thieves, the promiscuous, the covetous, and the prideful will too. That's not news either. Standard Muslim doctrine is that without repentance and faith towards God, all will end up in hell because all have sinned. So no one is singling out Jews as uniquely sinful.

This is what I find disturbing. You call this radical behavior because Muslims believe it but you don't recognize that you hold parallel radical beliefs yourself.

So tim, enlighten us on what your liberal fear-mongering brainwashers have made you think my vision for the world is.

You are twisting my argument and using it against Tim without even having addressed it...

You are programmed to think as you do by your faith, just as all religious fundamentalists are. If you deviate from your faith the punishment is eternal damnation, you have no choice but to "tow the religious line" and believe exactly what you are told to believe in Biblical/Koran scripture.

It seems you don't want to touch the 6 points I made about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam with a ten foot pole. You characterize my arguments as "liberal exaggerations, illegitimate and hyperbolic comparisons, and alarmist scare tactics." These are nice for rights wingers preaching to the choir but it does not pertain to my points. So, I put to you again and any reader the following observations...

Fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity Have these in common.

1. They both take the Bible/Koran literally.

2. They both indoctrinate their children into their literal interpretations of the Koran/Bible at a very young age.

3. They both believe that their own religion is true while other religions, and even those with no religion, are false.

Now, based on these 3 facts, we can conclude

1. Literal interpretation of the Bible/Koran differs from, and within Christianity/Islam; hence you have Shiite/Sunni/Protestant/Catholic.

2. Christian/Islamic followers hold their beliefs zealously, to the point where you can't convince them that their own religion may be false.

3. Christian/Islamic religious beliefs are incompatible with one another. A person must be one or the other, not both. And, each thinks followers of the other are going to Hell.

So, I think a little secularism would do wonders for the world view of fundamentalist Christians/Muslims. It may teach them a little more tolerance. If that little 3 1/2 year old Muslim girl was taught that Jews are not immoral and if Fred Phelps was taught that Gays are not immoral, then I think the world have less hate in it.

Religion = Superstition.

Superstition = Ignorance.

Ignorance = Bigotry.

Bigotry = enemy of freedom and democracy.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Seeker,

Hyperbole? You're accusing others of being hyperbolic? Get over yourself.

[Aaron]

What I think frustrates seeker and to some extent me is that people view Christians wanting to represent their values in the political system as being just as dangerous ad Muslims trying to kill all the infidels. Is that honestly the opinion of the non-Christians here?

No, the Iranian president will probably not be elected here, but his nation just must smuggle a nuke into our nation and kill millions of people. If you think my support of state (not federal) marriage amendments is equal to support of killing millions of people then we are a lot farther away than I thought.

Cineaste, you can train people in secularism all you want. It still won't stop hatred and the killing and torturing of others. What do you do with Nazism, Communism? Are the millions upon millions who died under those regimes unimportant because they don't support your view that only religious people cause wars. Human nature, no matter what philosophy is behind it, will unfortunately always seek to crush others. You have to find a way of living that can move individuals beyond their human nature in order to limit the desire to step on others to get to the top.

As to your questioning me about my letting people die for my cause. Well to try to answer a loaded to the hilt question - you yourself said that we cannot pull out of Iraq now so you would be in the same boat as me. I think the reason to continue to stay in Iraq is two-fold (one selfish and one not): 1) It benefits us greatly to have a pro-Western democracy in the Middle East. It would work as a stablizing force in the region and would let other Muslims know they can live in freedom, not suffering at the hands of cruel dictators. 2) It gives the people of Iraq a chance to be free. They will killed continuously under Saddam, now unfortunately terrorists are working to do the same. But now they have a chance at securing their nation and eliminating the killings.

I don't know what the "magic number" of deaths is or even if there is one. It is not a contridiction to say that human life is valuable and that some things are worth dying for. I hate that any US solider or innocent civilian died in this war, but I think they died for a good cause that will ultimately bring about a better, safer world. (But I do not want to turn this thread into a discussion on the War in Iraq.)

As to the Fred Phelps thing - (as aside you do know that he is a Democrat right? He ran as a D in several elections before his rise to "fame." Just thought you might be interested in that tidbit.) Well for one I don't protest James Dobson for saying that Christians should love gay people. I don't think seeker does either, but Phelps does. I don't think our military deserves to die because gay people live in America. I don't think churches who allow gay people to come in should be protested, Phelps does. I don't think gay people are any more sinful than myself, Phelps does.

See Phelps, you can compare him to Radical Islam. For him there is no grace, no love, no chance - he hates gays. Islam hates the infidels. Christianity doesn't claim that gay people (or Jews) are pigs or lower than us. A Christians is not someone who is better than anyone else, but someone who has accepted Jesus free gift of salvation. Christianity has nothing to do with me being a good person.

As you don't think we see the similarities, how about these:

Fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Secularists have these in common.

1. They both take their faith (evolution/Koran) literally.
2. They both indoctrinate their children into their literal interpretations of their faith at a very young age.
3. They both believe that their own religion is true while other religions are false.

Now, based on these 3 facts, we can conclude
1. Literal interpretation of the faith differs from, and within Secularism/Islam; hence you have Shiite/Sunni/variations of evolution.
2. Secularists/Islamic followers hold their beliefs zealously, to the point where you can't convince them that their own religion may be false.
3. Secularists/Islamic religious beliefs are incompatible with one another. A person must be one or the other, not both. And, each thinks followers of the other is wrong and harmful to society.

My point is that you can do that same comparrison with any and all belief systems. Any and all belief systems can be perverted. Any and all belief system can lead to taking away the rights of certain groups and eventually to violence and war.

Honestly, this is why I feel we have not won the War on Terror quicker because we have to convince the other side that while we may have differences we don't want to kill each other - so let's join forces to defeat the common enemy and then we can deicde our differences.

If the terrorist win this, you are not going have to worry about campaigning for gay marriage - they'll just kill you. We want be arguing over our freedoms anymore - we won't have them. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

Can't you see the contradictions implicit in your opinion? If you're just as much a sinner as any gay, why should the gay be legally repressed, while you're free to do whatever you want? Why is the gay's relationship worth less than your own? Why is what they do - which harms nobody - so important that the government should refuse to provide legal recognition for it?

Christians are an immediate threat to the freedoms of nonChristians, because Christians insist on having legal protections designed on for themselves. Neither Cineaste, nor I, have any intention of legally restricting your behavior, but you clearly support legal positions which restrict the legal protections afforded to gays, simply because of their behavior. Behavior that, as we have established numerous times, doesn't affect you, your family, or your community in any way.

Terrorists are also an immediate threat, to the lives of Christians and nonChristians alike. But the existence of one doesn't cancel out the threat of the other.

[Louis]

Aaron ranted:
"I wait on "conservatives" like Andrew Sullivan and liberals like Rosie O'Donnell to attack these comments (Khatami's anti-gay diatribe) with at least as much fervor as they do at allegations of torture from terrorists detainees or citizens supporting the state marriage amendments."

Maybe if you actually read his blog you would realize that he DID condemn these comments on 9/12. A little intellectual honesty, please.

And, yes, I agree with Aaron and seeker: Islam is much worse than Christianity. MUCH WORSE. However, that doesn't excuse Christianity. I may not feel as threatened by xianity as by islam, but I still feel threatened. After all, the xians run this country, and are seeking ever more power. Each and every attempt to advance the equal status of gay people has been, and is being, viciously fought by xians. They think our orientation is a "sin" and therefore don't want this "sin" legitimized. They think we are threats to their families and their children and the country as a whole. No, they don't (as yet) demand our incarceration, torture, and execution, but, historically, xianism performed all these actions (look it up). Xianity was only dragged, kicking and screaming, out of such darkness and evil by the forces of reason and secularism (one reason it is in such ill-repute in Europe). If xianity is more moderate today ("only" advocating our forced return to the closet), it is because of the advance of secularism and the strict separation of church and state. Such heroes as Jefferson and Franklyn and Paine recognized the threat which organized religion represents to freedom and saw to it that we are protected from it (which, of course, today's religionistas are trying to undo).

As to Aaron's contention that we haven't beaten the terrorists because Sam's and Cineaste's and my "side" just doesn't understand the religionists (boo-hoo)... well, this reminds me of the Republican's contention that, if we don't vote for them, the terrorists will win. It's sick. I can hate the terrorists and will their deaths without loving Christians. I see my views as defensive: I don't want homophobia enshrined in the Constitution, and I don't want xians defining for me my personal worth and how I live my life. I want them to mind their own business and indulge their cult in private.

I used to be a xian. I studied it deeply. I actually believed its advertized claims to mercy and love and reconcilation and the rest. But reality soon forced its way in. A gay Christian makes as much sense as a Jew Nazi. Christers may not want to kill me (or they may, but are shamed into hiding it), be they want to kill my soul. And I hate them.

[seeker]

If you're just as much a sinner as any gay, why should the gay be legally repressed,
1. Lack of sanction is not oppression.
2. The difference is, I am forsaking my sin and not trying to justify it. The unrepentant homosexual is only "repressed" becuase he persists in resiting what is good.

Why is what they do - which harms nobody - so important that the government should refuse to provide legal recognition for it?
Becuase your contention that it harms no one is not true. By sanctioning such mental disorders, we keep people from healing, we prevent research into healing such conditions, we hurt child development because children need both genders for optimal psychological health, and because we disrupt the traditional family, which is the basis for healthy, stable human society.

The fact that such items are arguable makes a good argument for toleration, i.e. government neutrality, not sanction.

Christians are an immediate threat to the freedoms of nonChristians, because Christians insist on having legal protections designed on for themselves.
Like what? Legal protection for the unborn is not for Christians. Legal protection for the traditional family is not just for xians, it is for society. I mean, sure, Christians focus on things that affect them, just like Jews or Gays. But no one's freedom is being taken away. That's just a consistent twist of the truth. Toleration is not prohibition.

Neither Cineaste, nor I, have any intention of legally restricting your behavior, but you clearly support legal positions which restrict the legal protections afforded to gays, simply because of their behavior.
So, you have no problem with school bible clubs? How about evangelization on school campus by students? How about my right to preach that homosexuality is a sin? Do you want to classify that as hate speech to shut me up? I hope not.

And again, no one is restricting anyone's behavior. You can be married - I mean, the polygamists aren't hurting anyone, but their marriages are ILLEGAL. If you made that argument, you might have some traction. But gays are only seeking one set of "rights" - the right to have the government officially recognized their dysfunction as normal, and to teach it in the schools as such, and to restrict and persecute those who seek to heal homosexuality.

And, yes, I agree with Aaron and seeker: Islam is much worse than Christianity. MUCH WORSE. However, that doesn't excuse Christianity. I may not feel as threatened by xianity as by islam, but I still feel threatened. After all, the xians run this country, and are seeking ever more power. Each and every attempt to advance the equal status of gay people has been, and is being, viciously fought by xians. They think our orientation is a "sin" and therefore don't want this "sin" legitimized. They think we are threats to their families and their children and the country as a whole. No, they don't (as yet) demand our incarceration, torture, and execution, but, historically, xianism performed all these actions (look it up).
At least I can trust Louis to have intellectualy honesty. I agree, pretty much, with your assessment here. There are fringe groups that may call for criminalization of homosexuality, but I am not one of them, and I really don't think that this will happen.

[Sam Wilkinson]

A. It isn't a disfunction. It isn't a disfunction just because you once experimented with it and now you feel badly about it. It isn't a disfunction because some people change over time. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You know this, yet you insist on lying about it, claiming that there's great damage done by homosexuals. The only damage done is done TO homosexuals by people like you.

B. The government sanctions all sorts of behaviors that I find repellent. I think you can tolerate it sanctioning one behavior that you find repellent.

C. Nobody's proposing restricting childbirth to only married, stable, two-parent homes. So don't give me the endless crap about promoting stable familes. Any idiot can get married. 100 times if they want to. As long as they're straight. If you were serious about marriage, you'd restrict to to fertile men and women between the ages of 18-45, and force divorce upon those families that can no longer bear children. You'd never do that though, because you don't actually believe that children are that important to a marriage. And besides, marriages disintegrate all the time, particularly Christian ones. That's gays fault? I think not. You have no interest in fixing or promoting marriage, only in excluding gays.

D. Do I want to restrict your rights to preach your hateful crap? Of course not. Preach away. And school Bible clubs? Who cares? If kids want to be dumb, they ought to be allowed to be dumb.

E. Seeker, you're the one who has claimed that gays are lucky to have what they've already got in America, and you clearly endorse sodomy laws. Don't act like you don't.

[Aaron]

Sam, part of this is for another day, another thread, but sins do not always equal illegal. I think I have said that over and over again here. Just because I regard something as a sin does mean I think it should be outlawed. It is not a contridiction to say I am a sinner just like the polygomist, but we should not as a nation recognize polygomy.

Christians do not seek legal protection designed for themselves, but the better generalization is that Christians seek to uphold traditional views rather than progressive ones. Gay marriage amendment is not designed to protect all the Christian marriages, but rather to protect the traditional view of man/women marriage. Many suppot that without supporting the tenets of Christianity.

As to restricting my behavior - I can probably think of several things that you support in restricting the behavior of Christians.

As to Louis, response - Glad to see you back Louis. I honestly mean that.

I do read Sully occasionally and know that he has not devoted nearly the time to this as the evil "Christers" as you call us.

I will let the skewed version of history alone, I would like to note that your champion of recognizing the threat of organized religion tended to like religion. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist that referenced the "wall of separation between church and state," Jefferson ended it with this: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." Doesn't sound to hostile to religion to me.

You start by twisting my words to winning the WoT. 1) I didn't state it as a fact, just wondering if we joined together to fight a common enemy would we be any farther. 2) I didn't say you misunderstood me. I said you misunderstand the threat posed by Islam, if you think Christians are more dangerous than them.

Louis, essentially it seems your proposal for Christians is the same as you claim Christians is for gays. You want to force us back in the closet ("mind their own business and indulge their cult in private") and you hate us ("I hate them.") Why is that okay for you, but not for Christians? I don't want you to go "back in the closet" and I certainly don't hate you. I don't want to kill your soul. I just disagree with you on some issues.

Cineaste, said I was wrong at one point to use a military comparrison when discussing cultural issues. Yet here in this discussion, the common theme seems to be that Christians are just as much a threat as the terrorists we are fighting. How is that right? An illustration is bad, but calling me the same as a terrorist is perfectly okay?

Everyone always chastises Christian groups for invoking the evil gay conspiracy (including me, I think it's silly), yet consistently Cineaste, Sam and Louis, you all speak of Christians as this vast right wing conspirarcy that is slowly working as a unified group to take your freedoms away and long for the day to kill gay people. You continually demand different behavior from us than you are willing to live by.

Sam, you continually tell seeker and sometimes me that we really hate gays we just won't admit it, that we want to force them back in the closet, etc. You acknowledge those things as bad. Yet, Louis often says the same things outright about Christians and you usually defend his words or at least ignore them. Is this what you were talking about when you said not doing the right thing because of partisan reasons?

I'm not mad in this discussion, not even shocked, just a little saddened that we have to debate this with normal run-of-the-mill, non-rabid people, who saw and remember what the terrorists did to us on 9/11 and what they continue to do around the world. Louis may hate me, but at least he acknowledges I don't want to kill him and am less of a threat than a terrorist.

[seeker]

The government sanctions all sorts of behaviors that I find repellent. I think you can tolerate it sanctioning one behavior that you find repellent.
I think the word you want is "repugnant." I agree, some of the things sacntioned by govt may be lousy, but that's no reason to add more lousy legislation. Just out of curiousity though, what things do you find repugnant in today's policies (besides the war)?

You have no interest in fixing or promoting marriage, only in excluding gays.
Not true. There are countless Christian efforts to strengthen marriage, help people raise kids (including the ones that they don't abort), and to help people heal from divorce.

you're the one who has claimed that gays are lucky to have what they've already got in America, and you clearly endorse sodomy laws. Don't act like you don't.
I'm glad to see that, when challenged, you back off of your harsh interpretation of what I said, and cease from putting quotes around your interpretations as if I said those words. What you said above is closer to what I said, but still has a bit of your spin on it.

What I believe I said was that, rather than pushing for sanction, and in doing so, forcing their opinion on the rest of us, and perhaps endangering society at the same time, gays should be grateful for the freedoms and protections they have, and stop at point they are at.

Like all civil rights movements, they can go too far and push for "rights" that are actually unjust. I think pushing for the sanction of gay marriage is going too far.

[seeker]

And regarding sodomy laws, I have CLEARLY come out against them because they are prohibition. I push for toleration (neutrality). Stop fibbing to paint me as something I am not - don't you recognize that you do this all the time?

[Sam Wilkinson]

1. Aaron - I don't think that you and Seeker hate gays. I know that, at the bottom of your support for anti-gay-marriage amendments, is gay hatred. Nothing else holds any water whatsoever. And I know this because there is simply no possibility that, if you had any gay friends, in relationships, that you would object to them receiving legal recongition of their love for one another. Just as it would be impossible for me to argue, having met you and your wife for example, that you weren't deserving of legal recognition. To oppose the legal recognition of consensual love between adults seems the utmost of cruel, and is reflective of only hate.

2. Incidentally, Louis can say whatever he wants. I'm not Louis. But do his positions bother me? No, partly because there is approximately zero chance that they'll become enshrined in law. What you propose might be. And you well know that I have stated on numerous occaisons that I have no interest in you losing your rights: to marriage, to free speech, to practice religion, to anything. I believe strongly in your individual right to make your own decisions, and to have those decisions protected by the government, particularly if those decisions don't hurt anybody.

3. Policies that I object to Seeker? Your freedom of speech comes immediately to mind. If only the Constitution's authors had forseen your arrival and added an asterisk...it's less that I find policies offensive than I find them poorly managed, and poorly conceived. Gun ownership ought to be absolute for citizens, but that doesn't mean guns shouldn't be licensed like cars. Not allowing anybody under a certain age to hold elected office is as regressive as it is stupid. The government allowing media consolodation is idiotic - so to is the government considering a two-tiered internet. There are numerous policies that I object to, because they restrict individual decision making. And I've been more than clear about both prosititution and drug use. As for the war, I don't find it repugnant - I find its execution to be mind-bogglingly stupid. But that's what you get when politicians and journalists don't do their jobs.

4. Seeker, enough. "...gays should be grateful for the freedoms and protections they have," is absurd. That's like saying that Christians ought to be grateful for what they've got, and ought to shut the f-ck up otherwise. Are you comfortable with me saying that? Then why should I be comfortable with you suggesting that gays ought to celebrate being legally second-class, and living in relationships with no legal protections. Ridiculous.

5. Seeker, given your druthers, you and your thuggish friends would come into the homes of all Americans and tell them how they could and couldn't have sex. You know you would. And this is primarly because your disgusted by your own interest in some sexual behaviors.

[Louis]

Toleration is not the same as neutrality. Neutrality would establish the same rights for ALL. It has no position. Toleration maintains the status quo, but merely doesn't discriminate. If you truly are neutral regarding gay rights, you would support equality.

As to Aaron's comments: I don't merely hate. It didn't come out of nowhere. I hate BACK. You xians really need to try to put yourselves in our (gays) shoes for a while. You pat yourselves on the back and assure yourselves that what you advocate isn't hatred at all, nor even discrimination. You think you are being entirely reasonable when you oppose gay equality, and believe that calling gay orientation "sinful" is the same as calling yourselves sinners. You constantly let yourselves off the hook for the repercussions of your views. You have absolutely no conception of how your opinions and your actions affect gay people. NONE. You think us unreasonable because we don't buy into your high opinions of yourselves or that we don't just accept at face value your explanations of how just and right you are, and how you are merely exercising your rights as citizens when you seek to pass laws and constitutional amendments restricting our rights. Well, from our standpoint, what you are doing is hateful, is threatening, and is alienating as all hell. Yes, your religion does look like a cult because you are resistant to any reasoning or, even, pleading - even the moderates among you. Sometimes I wonder if Christ himself would act this way - didn't he stick up for the oppressed, the outcast, the unclean? But, then, I realize that, yes, he would be among you. After all, he declared that he wasn't here to supplant Moses' law but to fulfill it. And Moses' law demands the death of gay people. Reasoning with religionists is futile because you don't, ultimately, base your views on reason, but on faith. And faith is belief without evidence. Thus, you just believe in your holy book because...well, just because. There's no alternative view for you. It's absolutist and dictatorial. How can I do anything but hate something which wishes me ill and can't be reasoned with. An absolutist view can only be fought with an equal or stronger absolutism.

And I don't view monotheistic religions merely based on what they are doing today, but historically - on what they've done in the past, and on what they are capable of doing. Seen in that light, xianity is as bad as islam, and, given the opportunity (ie, the defeat of secular culture) would likely revert to the absolutism and despotism of its past. It's inherent in the beast. The male sky-god of monotheism is absolute and dictatorial. There is no space for any other view.

[Aaron]

Louis it's easy to come and say you hate back to some vast out there group of religionists trying to hold you down, but what you are saying is that you hate me personally. There are individuals involved in the evil groups you speak of who don't hate you and do understand that you are going to disagree with us and not understand where we are coming from.

That's one of the reasons why it would be so easy just to say, "screw it" or more aptly "whatever" and leave the debate at that. But I view my beliefs as beneficial for everyone. I'm not going to force them on you or legislate them on you, but I am going to attempt to show you that the characature you have of evangelical Christianity is wrong.

You speak of what religionists do and how they conquer, kill, etc. in present as well as past. Can I not say the same of secularists? Have they also not conquered and killed in the name of their religion? Are their not Christians dying right now in China because they will not become an atheist? You act as if religious people are the only ones who ever oppress or take away freedoms.

I acknowledge that Christianity has been used for horrible things in the past and even the present (Phelps comes to mind), but you, or Cineaste who also likes to argue this line of thinking, fail to acknowledge that secularism can also lead to the things you claim to be against. Or is it okay when rights are taken away from me and other Christians because "we deserve it."

Actually, my faith is based on reason. I have basis for supporting the Christian faith. I went through a period of testing myself. I started to waiver in what I believed, questioned eveything I had been taught. I found my questions answered and a faith that is the most rational and reason-based philosophical system. Seeker left Christianity and has come back, one of the reasons he has said was because of reason. Countless people have been converted to Christianity through the use of logic and reason by investigating the claims and finding that the Christian faith best explains this world.

Do I believe homosexual acts are a sin? Yes, I do. Do I believe that as much as I believe in Jesus' death and resurrection as the way to salvation? Nope, not even close. In all honesty, I could be wrong about the Christian approach to homosexuality. I don't think so, but I could. I'm not perfect and I do not know everything, by a long shot. But I see no way, logically, through reason or any other means that I am wrong about Jesus and who He is.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Or is it okay when rights are taken away from me and other Christians because "we deserve it."

Woah Aaron! Which of your rights are taken away from you via gay marriage? How on Earth have your rights been threatened, ever?

And please. You are de facto legislating your beliefs onto everybody when you insist that we cannot have gay marriage. Those are your beliefs, and they're are forced onto everybody, whether they agree or not.

[Cineaste]

Have they (secularists) also not conquered and killed in the name of their religion?

Aaron, who is the secularist diety?

[Louis]

Aaron always takes this tack when challenged: don't reply to any criticisms directly, but, instead, try to make a case that his opponets are doing the same thing. I guess in his logical mind that that makes what he is doing okay. Thus, he makes a claim that, even though religionists commit crimes, so do "secularists" - so there. As evidence of this, he points to China, and I suppose he would include past and present communist and fascist atheistic regimes. This is in keeping with his (mis-)characterizing secularism as a "religion." However, neither China, nor North Korea, nor past communist or fascist regimes are/were secular; rather, they are/were crypto-religious ideologies, exhibiting all the earmarks of religion but without God. They were atheist states offically, but they substituted the party, or the leader, or the state in God's place. Thus, they combined all the bad aspects of religion without any of its minor redeeming factors. A true secular society merely remains neutral in regards religion: it allows religions to flourish without interference or aid, and contents itself with a religion-neutral form of governance where informed debate, respect for reason and science, and democratic institutions control government rather than revealed relgion, religious institutions, and priests. Secular societies may have their own peculiar problems, but they are far more open, tolerant, and democratically inclined than societies based on revealed truths and rigid ideologies.

Another point worth making: given Christianity's claims I really think a higher standard should be expected of it and its adherents than that of absolutist ideologies like communism and fascism. Christianity is supposed to be "good," representing, as it purports, Christ and the God Who is Goodness, Mercy, Justice, etc. Don't you think that Christianity should be held to a higher standard than what passes for government in China or even America? I never cease to be amazed at the atrocities xianity has and continues to commit, to its rank injustices, to its hubris and cruelties, to its arrogant assumption of the right to judge and condemn those who don't kow-tow to its demands and superstitions. I'm convinced that, should the restraining power of secular forces be removed, it will revert to its past tyrannical ways.

I'm convinced that human-kind seeks some relationship with what I call, for lack of a better (or worse) term, the Mystery. I also think that all religions have this quest at their core. But I also think that the monotheisms have proven to be the worst, most destructive, paths to an appreciation of this Mystery. They are inherently - almost by definition - absolutist and intolerant of any other method or way of life. They have a long record of oppression, persecution, and destruction of anyone or any culture who does not toe their narrow line. Sure, there are individuals who don't display these evil traits, but they are merely the exceptions which prove the rule. One doesn't need religion to an ethical, merciful and decent human being.

Finally, I feel monotheism's destructiveness most personally regarding sexual matters, but I also fear it more generally. And their adherents can claim until they are blue in the face that their intent is benign, but I will still distrust and fear them, for I know their history, and I know what lies behind their mask of benignity. And I am not alone.

[Aaron]

Sam, I didn't say gay marriage took away my rights. I was speaking that in the past, present and in the future secularism would work to take away specific, inalienable rights of Christians and other religious people. They are not at that point in the US today, but they are in other parts of the world.

Cineaste, Darnwin? ;)

Honestly, many religions do not have a diety. That is not requirement. Neither is a diety a requirement for conquering and killing in the name of a philosophy (if you don't like religion). Secularism is just as vulnerable, if not more so, as any other way of thinking.

[seeker]

I know that, at the bottom of your support for anti-gay-marriage amendments, is gay hatred. Nothing else holds any water whatsoever.
Well, that's just peachy. I also "know" that your acceptance of homosexuality is rooted in your hatred for what is right, and your hatred for God. Isn't it cool how we can "know" each other's motives?

To oppose the legal recognition of consensual love between adults seems the utmost of cruel, and is reflective of only hate.
Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by ignorance. In this same paragraph, you accuse us of not knowing any gay couples anyway, so I'd say your better argument would be willful ignorance.

given your druthers, you and your thuggish friends would come into the homes of all Americans and tell them how they could and couldn't have sex. You know you would. And this is primarly because your disgusted by your own interest in some sexual behaviors.
I know you certainly think that, but you're just listening to the demon in your head.

In all honesty, I could be wrong about the Christian approach to homosexuality. I don't think so, but I could.
I agree with Aaron on this, and Louis, your post was very well spoken and I am thinking about it.

who is the secularist diety?
That's easy. Man himself.

A true secular society merely remains neutral in regards religion: it allows religions to flourish without interference or aid, and contents itself with a religion-neutral form of governance where informed debate, respect for reason and science, and democratic institutions control government rather than revealed relgion, religious institutions, and priests. Secular societies may have their own peculiar problems, but they are far more open, tolerant, and democratically inclined than societies based on revealed truths and rigid ideologies.
I agree somewhat with your non-religious view of secularity, but it in no way can remain neutral with respect to religion. In fact, where its ideas conflict with religion (like in areas of public morality), it must assert itself, and science, above religion. And it is right in doing so. However, secularists have often departed from wisdom this way, as evidenced in such messed up programs such as social welfare, teen pregnancy prevention, and other programs that ignore the plain biblical truths that could be verified by science. Humanistic values often end up justifying destructive behavior, and secularism is particularly prone to listening to such mistaken approaches.

However, I do agree that secular societies (freedom of religion), if built upon sound ideas (which end up being the biblical ones), do great. That's why the US is great. The foray into sanctioning homosexuality, however, will not go well.

[Sam]

Seeker,

If the foray into recognizing homosexual marriage won't go well, why don't you point toward some evidence out of Massachusetts. What has happened there since homosexual marriage has been legalized?

[seeker]

Let me ask you a question. How long did it take for divorce rates to go up after no-fault divorce was instituted? How long did it take for us to see the long term effects of divorce on the children?

Gays may get married a lot in the beginning, and we may so no ill effects at first. But we should watch such related indicators such as attitudes towards marriage in the young, fidelity in relationships, the resulting mental states of children of gay homes (do they have higher suicide rates like their gay parents? And if so, why? Is it due to gender confusion or rejection of traditional marriage?).

It may take time to see the effects. But whenever we approve of sin, it comes back to haunt us. That's the whole idea behind fleeing from sin.

[Cineaste]

Who is the secularist diety?
That's easy. Man himself.

Given what a man is and given what a diety is, your response is impossible. Secularists don't worship mankind, though they would be much easier for you to attack if they did. Louis gave an excellent definition of Secularism.

A true secular society merely remains neutral in regards religion: it allows religions to flourish without interference or aid, and contents itself with a religion-neutral form of governance where informed debate, respect for reason and science, and democratic institutions control government rather than revealed relgion, religious institutions, and priests. Secular societies may have their own peculiar problems, but they are far more open, tolerant, and democratically inclined than societies based on revealed truths and rigid ideologies. -Louis

Regarding secular society and staying religiously neutral, this means not favoring one religion over another, Christianity over Islam or vice versa. It has nothing to do with "social welfare, teen pregnancy prevention, etc."

"Humanistic values often end up justifying destructive behavior."

Seeker, this is a religious perspective. For example, fundamentalist Muslims view the events in the Quran as "scientifically proven."

http://islamyesterday.com/science/

Now, all I am saying is that Christianity should not be placed above Islam and Islam should not be placed above Christianity. The United States should remain religiously neutral and rely on hard science, nothing tainted with religious self interests like creation myths. (lets not turn this into yet another creation evolution discussion, I was only using an example "plain biblical truths that could be verified by science" but from the Muslim side.)

[mynym]

Sometimes I wonder if Christ himself would act this way - didn't he stick up for the oppressed, the outcast, the unclean? But, then, I realize that, yes, he would be among you. After all, he declared that he wasn't here to supplant Moses' law but to fulfill it. And Moses' law demands the death of gay people.

It seems to me that elements of transcendent Natural Law were merged into a relative situation among the ancient Jews and combined with laws which were merely ritual and symbolic as well. So it seems to me that laws condemning people engaging in behaviors known to be a danger to the whole tribe by disease and epidemic that could wipe it out are to some degree relativized by their situation. In the New Testament the same sort of Natural Law is mentioned without it being accompanied with a death penalty to be implemented by a Christian tribe or State, other than the one that tends to come naturally.

Reasoning with religionists is futile because you don't, ultimately, base your views on reason, but on faith.

Religious people are the only people with a reason for reason, it has always been pagans who begin with absurdity, which is not to say that "religious" people always have or will reason correctly. Having a reason for reason is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for reasoning correctly.

And faith is belief without evidence.

No it isn't. It's faith in various forms of evidence and testimony.

Thus, you just believe in your holy book because...well, just because.

That's incorrect. For example, if men and women weren't actually complementary to each other and weren't actually capable of a two-in-one-flesh type of marriage then most Christians wouldn't sit around saying, "I still believe it is so...uh, just because."

There's no alternative view for you.

There's no alternative view for anyone, everyone always thinks that they are right. If you think that you are wrong then you think that you are right about how wrong you are. And so on. That's just the way it is, everyone always thinks that they are right.

It's absolutist and dictatorial. How can I do anything but hate something which wishes me ill and can't be reasoned with. An absolutist view can only be fought with an equal or stronger absolutism.

I'm curious how you would argue against Hitler. Hitler was an effeminate sexual pervert and was rather passive agressive as a result, so one of his arguments for intolerance of the Jews and the "Jewish influence" went something like this: "It was the Jews who invented intolerance in their monotheistic religion. Therefore intolerance towards the Jews is a necessity."

And I don't view monotheistic religions merely based on what they are doing today, but historically - on what they've done in the past, and on what they are capable of doing.

It seems that you judge all beliefs on the basis of how they suit your sexuality and sexual desires. It seems to matter little to you what is true. Ironically history actually shows that a socialist doctor is just as likely to lobotomize a homosexual and seek a medical cure for deviants as a Christian is to believe in hate the sin but love the sinner and the like. You seem unaware of how quickly things can turn when given purely secular values of nation and state but given the economic cost of disease when things get tight and money doesn't paper over decadence as well then the "experts" begin to say what is economical instead of what is purely political. E.g. the Weimar Republic, all the gay artists and the like felt so safe in an increasingly secular and decadent place and yet then the shift where the philosophic naturalism and medicalization that they supported is turned to national needs based on economics.

Apparently you're blinded by phobias and cannot see this pattern, of course religious people may condemn homosexuality but there will be no American cleric who actually takes control of the state and does anything about it. Those who will do something when times get tight will be the ones in white lab coats.

Seen in that light, xianity is as bad as islam, and, given the opportunity (ie, the defeat of secular culture) would likely revert to the absolutism and despotism of its past.

A satire of your argument: "Seen in the light of the values of the culture in which I live that have been shaped by Protestants, Christianity is as bad as Islam...and will probably go back to Catholic despotism or merging the Church and the State if left to itself. It's a good thing I can assume enough Christianity to condemn Christianity."

It's inherent in the beast. The male sky-god of monotheism is absolute and dictatorial. There is no space for any other view.

The beast...an ironic choice of words for one who reduces man to mere animal and so on.

It sometimes seems that people of your general psychological dynamics enjoy Islam because it gives you an opportunity to vent your Cosmic Oedipus complex on Father God as if the Heavenly Father really is a Big Meanie and so on. No space for any other view, then how is it that so many evil views have been allowed to exist by God and similarly the very religious people that you condemn often do not police every evil?

Yet among those who choose to self-define as gay there is a consistent pattern towards smothering all views which impinge upon religious hedonism in the least way as some Great Evil. So if one supports state sanction for one form of sexuality as opposed to all other based on the fact that it promotes the general welfare then that can only be because of Great Evil, on a par with wishing death on people, killing people, beating them down in the street and so on. To the average religious hedonist who defines the truth by their own sexual desires, it is all the same. That's how black and white their views often are and sometimes they move towards policing every evil and even evil motivations through hate crimes and so on. Given that anything that impinges on religious hedonism is a part of the Great Evil it's all the same black/"intolerance" vs. white/tolerance, no matter how different beliefs and the people who hold them actually are.

[mynym]

The United States should remain religiously neutral and rely on hard science, nothing tainted with religious self interests like creation myths.

That's impossible, thus the proliferation Darwinian creation myths. Given the history of science and the various motivations and beliefs of scientists throughout history it is just silly to demand that science be some "pure" abstraction, pure empiricism, etc. It wasn't, isn't and never can be.

[Cineaste]

That's impossible, thus the proliferation Darwinian creation myths.

A Muslim would argue the same but from a Muslim perspective. A Viking would argue the same but from a Norse perspective. Let's compare the "Darwin Creation Myth" as you put it, to a religious creation myth...

Science vs. Norse Mythology

Science makes a lot of sense compared to religion.

[Aaron]

Louis, I agree that Christianity should be held to a higher standard, which is why I often go after Christian groups for doing things that go far beyond what they should be doing. Those often get forgotten in discussions like this.

My point in reminding people of the dangers of secularism, was that it is not a magic bullet to defeat radical Islam or anything else. As you very eloquently say, people have an inborn desire to worship what you call "Mystery." I would tell you as Paul told those at Mars Hill, what you worship as unknown, I worship as known, but that is for another discussion.

The turn toward a totalitarian government can happen in any culture, secular or religious because of man's desire to worship - that was my only point. I'm not sure what criticism I am dodging by pointing out that any philosophy can result in a loss of freedoms and life.

If the criticism is that Christians have done bad things in the past in the name of religion - I will agree with that. I have never disagreed with that. What I will disagree with is that because Christianity was used for ill in the past it is therefore doing the same in the present. That is taking too far of a leap. Christianity very well may be doing the same now, but the past does not necessitate that.

The difference in the debate over a secular government is this - no Christian here (that I know of) wants to have a theocratic rule in the US. We don't want to set up an American Pope to rule by force of God. We want a religion-neutral government. But what always comes across is that it seems those representing evangelical secularism do not want a religion-neutral government, they want a religion-free government and there is a difference.

Religion-neutral government would allow the free flow of ideas from whatever venue they may come from. Just because someone belongs to a religion or not, their idea will not be dismissed as worthless because of their religious identity. A religion-free government is just a step farther than what Louis described, in that "revealed relgion, religious institutions, and priests" are not allowed into debates on public policy because of their "bias" or whatever other reason.

Those who are not Christians hear can scream until you are blue in the face about the oncoming dangers of a Christianity theocracy, while many on the left (not all) completely ignore the Muslim terrorist with a bomb strapped on his chest.

Christians can't agree on what style of music to sing in church, what denomination to belong to, what to wear to church, what translation of the Bible is the best, Calvinism, Armenism, predestination, foreknowledge, and on down the line. Go over to the Neo-fundamentalist thread - that's Christians arguing over issues within our own camp. I don't say this gladly, I wish we didn't have so much disagreement, but it should illustrate the lack of a unified threat to freedom in America from Christians.

We honestly want the same things you do from a government. We just want a seat at the table with everyone else (I'm not saying we don't have one now). I am all for the free market of ideas - may the best ones win.

[Louis]

This is all just academic anyway. Xians rule the roost in America and always have. We don't need a formal theocracy for that (although some still want it). What we DO need is more contrarians, atheists, skeptics, and trouble-makers to counter the Reverend who sits in the oval office and his hoards of backers. We also need them to pull back the curtain on the REAL rulers of America, the rich and the multi-national corporations. The xians could even help out if they could get their noses out of their bible and realize they're being used.

I was going to answer m&m until he stooped into the sewer of pseudo-psychological insults. His kind just can't resist taunting gays. He just assumes the high, holy ground of heterosexual superiority which can dismiss and ridicule with ease because the hetero-hegemmony dictates it. Scum.

[seeker]

Given what a man is and given what a diety is, your response is impossible. Secularists don't worship mankind,
Not at all. Just becuase man does not actually have the characteristics of a deity doesn't mean that secularists don't treat mankind that way. When you say that secularists don't "worship" mankind, you may be thinking of churches and singing songs.

But placing something or someone as God is really seeing them as the final authority on what is right. They become the rule giver. When we appeal to our own limited and fallen reason as the final arbiter, we are treating our own reason, and hence ourselves, as our God.

I am not saying that we abandon reason, or turn the sciences over to religionists. What I am saying is that as an ideology, secularism puts man and man's reason into the place that God holds in religious ideologies. Religious ideologies employ reason, but not as the final arbiter.

[seeker]

What we DO need is more contrarians, atheists, skeptics, and trouble-makers to counter the Reverend who sits in the oval office and his hoards of backers. We also need them to pull back the curtain on the REAL rulers of America, the rich and the multi-national corporations. The xians could even help out if they could get their noses out of their bible and realize they're being used.

Agreed.

[Sam Wilkinson]

We want a religion-neutral government.

If that's true, support legislation to legalize gay marriage, then oppose it from the pulpit. Don't force religious doctrine on those who are not interested.

[Cineaste]

But placing something or someone as God is really seeing them as the final authority on what is right. They become the rule giver. When we appeal to our own limited and fallen reason as the final arbiter, we are treating our own reason, and hence ourselves, as our God.

So Seeker, are all secularists violators of 1st commandment then? And if so, does that mean all secularists are hell bound? And if secularists are already bound for hell, why should secularists care about being good people?

Aaron, if your reading, I also had a question for you. You said you feel the world is a safer place since Bush took over. Looking at the numbers, I disagree strongly but it made me think about the "war on terror." Do you think we can win such a war and if so, how? I ask because it seems to me that it's something that can't be defeated with bullets. It's like declaring war on war itself. There will always be disaffected people somewhere who will commit acts of terrorism. I've said before that the only way I think we can win this war is through secular education. Educating Muslims to be Christians just wont fly. There are no Christian Muslims. However, there are many secular Muslims just as there are many secular Christians.

[seeker]

support legislation to legalize gay marriage, then oppose it from the pulpit.
Sorry, I don't want to support your morality (religion) with legislation. How about the govt remains neutral.

[seeker]

And if so, does that mean all secularists are hell bound?
All men are hell bound until the repent and believe in Christ. All men have broken the moral laws in one way or another. All are guilty, secularists included. In Christianity, no one is righteous, not mother theresa, not the pope.

Secularists should care about being good people for many reasons. One, it is good for their own well being. Second, virtue is, in some sense, its own reward.

Even in Christianity, we don't do works to earn salvation. We do it because we are becoming like Christ, because it is the right thing to do and we are being changed by God to love what is right. Additionally, Jesus said that at the judgment of *believers* we will each give an account to God, and be rewarded according to our works. God will administer justice and reward to us for our efforts. It is only just.

I've said before that the only way I think we can win this war is through secular education. Educating Muslims to be Christians just wont fly. There are no Christian Muslims.

1. As I said in The Tripartite Model of Man, we must address man's body, soul, AND spirit to reform society. You are talking here only about the soul (education). If you do not address spiritual issues, you will never effectively transoform a society.

2. You can create secular muslims, and you might make significant headway. But I would also want to Christianize them for a much better effect.

3. There are ex-muslim christians, plenty. Visit PMI.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Sorry, I don't want to support your morality (religion) with legislation. How about the govt remains neutral.

You aren't. You're not supporting it at all. You're against it, and you can be against it from the pulpit. But that doesn't mean that you should be able to restrict the relationships of others, simply because you disagree. Your proposed "neutrality" is getting exactly what you want, at the expense of those who disagree with you. You really don't believe that's neutral, do you? I mean, you UNDERSTAND the definition of the word, right?

[Sam Wilkinson]

To further illustrate my point, look at the consumption of alcohol. Some people think its bad. Some people think its good. Some people think its good, but bad for themselves (me). Does the government tell people NOT to drink alcohol? No. It only steps in when you've broken the law.

The same should go for gay marriage. Some can oppose it, some can enjoy it, but the government should recognize it, and let citizens try to convince one another about its rightness or wrongness.

[seeker]

No, I am against homosexuality, but I am FOR government neutrality, which means no sanction.

[seeker]

Does the government tell people NOT to drink alcohol? No.
Actually, it does. It prohibits minors from drinking. Gays are allowed to be married, too.

[Sam Wilkinson]

What? Minors? We're not talking about minors. We're talking about consenting adults.

[Louis]

Give it up, Sam. Bigots and hatemongers like seeker will never be convinced. Time to shake the dust from your sandals.