if you think sending 1100 soldiers to die due to lack of planning should be called "giving a damn", that's fine with me.... On the other hand, i think lip service means nothin if not backed up by action.....
Glad to have your viewpoint, as it reinforces some of the things I've been thinking. Also, incidentally, one of my first cousins lives in Iowa (Ames) and is the main reason I'm supportive of gay rights. I've known the guy all my life. He's as normal a person as you or me. He lives with his partner of 4 years, they are committed to each other and seem to love each other just as much as the heterosexual married folks I know. Yet they don't have the same rights at the federal level and they have insults hurled at them at least once a week for daring to hold hands or show simple acts of affection (re: not making out or anything, just innocent stuff) in public. This paragraph is the crux of my argument. I don't think that the government should pass regulations demanding the church to marry gay couples. That decision belongs to the church. This issue has NOTHING to do with the church. It has to do with federal rights and priviledges given to married couples by the government. These rights aren't religious, they are govenmental. Bush and some of his supporters are attempting to intertwine the two, which imposes Christian belief into federal law, making it impossible for good people like my cousin to get married. Nobody is saying the Church should accept gay marriage, but you have to acknowlege at some point that the federal government is NOT the church. I hold the exact same view. I'm finishing up my education as a future English teacher, and I personally feel it's impossible to teach any religious text as "just information." Anti-religious folks will likely inadvertantly bring that attitude through as will ultra-religious folks. Holy texts, regardless of the faith, belong at home or in the church, where a parent or religious leader can guide the spiritual belief of the child. You made complete sense, and again, I'm glad for the input. I just get frustrated at the ever blurring line between federal and Christian law.
I wasn't trying to encompass the whole thing. I was trying to express my opinion on areas I felt most strongly about and somewhat informed about as a member of the group he was addressing at the end of his post. Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.
No, but Puritans, Quakers and Atheists were. All of them got a fair shake, until Christian law started becoming national law. Then you saw people being burned as witches for ********s sake! The founders avoided the establishment of a monarchy because they were opposed to the oppressive monarchy of England. They didn't come over here and establish a monarchy that would be oppressive to English people. By the same token, the founders came over here because they were upset over religious persecution. They established freedom of religion in order to avoid similar persecution in the future, NOT to shift that persecution onto other people. Just out of curiosity, aside from homophobia, exactly what "restored values" are you exited about? What do you want to see next on the docket? Resegregation? Regression of women's rights? Do you want to start burning witches again, or is that too far? I'm all ears.
It is thinking like this that will lose the Democratic party election after election. "We love, they hate". Get over it. Most people voted for Bush because they believe he is the best choice for the country. John Kerry was unable to either convince them that he was a better choice or to scare them that Bush would destroy the country. I believe that Christians were more likely to vote for Bush, but does that equate to "their church organized then to"? I have yet to hear of churches "organizing" voters to go vote for Bush. If a few did, then great for them, but that is far from a large movement which would undoubtedly have been documented. As to "they hate/are afraid of gay people" this is just not an issue for most people. Show me anywhere that this is documented. That is just a made-up issue, not to mention the FACT that Bush and Kerry's views on the issue are remarkably similar. As long as the DNC continues to feel that they somehow have the moral high ground and that their opponents are a bunch of rednecks/gun-toters/idiots/gaybaiters/christian lunatics they will never be able to campaign effectively. The people who voted for Bush defied the simplistic labels that so many on this board have sought to apply to them.
Thanks, glad I made sense to you, unlike at least one other person who read it. I agree that the issue of law and religion in terms of marriage is a sticky one. I'm not quite sure of what the best solution is, partially because religious belief is carried out in practice on a daily basis. That makes it difficult for a Christian with the same beliefs as me to say "Oh, it's okay for gays to get married," which is giving approval to people doing what that person feels is wrong. I guess the whole civil union thing is a legal alternative, but even that would be tough, as that gets into the slippery slope of "Well, it's practically marriage, if we do that, why don't we just say they can get married," that would most likely happen. It's a very difficult issue, as seen by the divisions between people today. One of the purposes for posting was to hopefully dispel the idea some people seem to have that if a person is against gay marriage, they're a homophobe. My college had a high number of gays, being strong in the arts and music (which I was involved in), so it's not like I've never been around gays or lesbians. I never ever had any problems with any of them, and never treated them any differently than heterosexuals, so the idea that I'm a homophobe because I don't believe gay marriage is right is a bunch of bull.
For anyone who cares, the above post contains the kind of talking points I mentioned that I'd rather not get as a response. For the sake of the truth, it was acknowledged on numerous election coverage channels that churches were working to get the vote out in Ohio. It was also noted that "morality" was listed as the most important issue for many voters. It was also shown that in states with gay marriage issues on the ballot, Bush did extremely well, most likely due to voters turning out to vote for the gay marriage ban being Bush supporters. As to the rest of the tripe that was your post, if you bothered to read mine, you'll see that I don't insult religious folks in any way. I specifically stated that I respect them for their beliefs, and there are times I wish I could hold them myself. I just don't want anybodies religious beliefs legislated upon the rest of the nation. Please don't waste my time with talking points again. Wake up your brain and form your own viewpoint, or just don't bother. Thanks.
So it's OK for you to talk claptrap, but if anyone gives a dissenting opinion, it is dismissed as "talking points". You'll also note I did not single you out, I said as long as the DNC continue to...etc. You are the one that needs to quit grasping at the overly simplistic preconceptions you have and wake up your brain.
It might be different depending on where you are in the country. Some friends of mine who teach in Virginia say there has been a huge push for the return of prayer, creationism and the Bible to public schools. I've also seen that Chuck Norris commercial urging folks to demand the Bible be taught all over the place lately. I'd agree with people who don't want teachers discussing prayer with their kids. I dread the day it gets forced back into schools. I'm qualified to teach kids everything from Bronte to Shakespeare, but I don't know a damned thing about nurturing faith. True enough, and if it seemed like I was implying that to be the case, I apologize. You may be right. I honestly don't know. All I know is that around here, I've been running into more and more Muslims in my day to day life. Either way though, whether it's Muslims or Atheists, eventually some group will outnumber Christians, and I'm sure they don't want that group legislating their beliefs or lack of belief on the rest of the nation.
Sorry you feel that way. Have a nice day. (note the lack of hate in response to your hatred and insult...and Democrats are supposed to be the tolerant and open-minded party???)
True, but what about lying? Cheating on your heterosexual spouse? The Bible is opposed to these things too, so by that logic, they should be illegal. Allowing gay marriage isn't a sign of you giving your approval as a Christian. It's you acknowleging that these people live their own lifestyle and will be judged by a higher power when they die. Your role as a Christian would be to live your own life by your own beliefs and attempt to persuade gays to change their lifestyle. You can't just legislate that change or it would be worthless and empty. I proposed an idea a couple of months ago that seems to me to be the simplest alternative. Why not just eliminate the term "marriage" from federal law? In the eyes of the government, ALL marriages gay or straight would be "Civil Unions" and those Unions could then go to the church to validate it as a "Marriage." That gives the term "marriage" to the churches and eliminates any discrimination from federal law. I honestly think that compromise would make the majority of both sides happy.
Wait, the Church organizing "Get Out The Vote" campaigns work both ways. many predominantly black churches urge their congregations to vote and generally they vote Democratic. I don't really see an issue with any "Get Out The Vote" campaigns, regardless of who starts them. It's simply grassroots political activism.
Issues like abortion and gay rights are not specific to a single religion. A lot of Muslims are actually more socially conservative than Christians. To you, legal marriage is completely separate from churches. But the fact that most churches regard marriage as a sacrament or at least something sacred means that a lot of conservative Christians feel threatened by gay marriage. Church-state separation is a two way street, and I think for the good of the country we need to keep them separate as much as possible. That's why I think the state should only perform civil unions, for straights or gays. If gay rights advocates were pushing for civil unions I think the opposition would be limited to hardcore conservatives, but by introducing the word marriage into the debate, a lot of people see that as an attempt to force social and religious change. EDIT - You beat me to it. I don't know why the idea of civil unions for all doesn't get more support.
You quoted my post to make yours. That tells me you were responding to me. If you weren't, you should not have quoted me. I don't consider dissenting opinion as "talking points." You want proof? Look at the conversation I've been having with the poster from Iowa. Talking points are spin designed to obscure the truth by ignoring, manipulating or making up facts. You made a claim, supported it with made up information. I pointed out where you were wrong. That's why I hate talking points. When I have to reply to them, it feels like I'm grading papers. As to my "overly simplistic preconceptions," I don't see how it should be overly complicated. This country was formed on the basis of avoiding the legislation of one religion and lately it has reverted back to the ideas and ideals if the Puritans. When making federal policy, you simply can't figure in "what God wants" because not everybody has your God. Practice religion at home and Democracy in Washington. Maybe to you that seems overly simplistic, but I would love to hear what's supposed to be so damned complicated about it.
The removal of the term marriage, while functionally, may please most people, it'd probably be hard, as people are so used to the term and idea (or ideal) of "marriage." I know I am, as someone who's engaged. Again, I wish I knew what the best solution was, but if there was a perfect solution, someone much smarter and wiser than me would have come up with it a long time ago. I've gotta get to my studies, so I'll just have to leave it at not having my mind 100% made up, which is the case in a lot of these hot button issues. I enjoyed our discourse, Jacen, it's hard to have a rational and enjoyable discussion about such issues with the current political climate. There are a lot of people who are mean spirited on both sides (as evidenced so well by revolt's feelings) that can't really discuss these issues. Thanks!
There have been a number of media reports of Catholic priests reminding their churchgoers that voting for someone who supports abortion rights is a sin. Funny how the priests aren't saying anything about voting for someone who causes the death of innocent Iraqi women and children by dropping bombs on them is also a sin. Here's one and it only took a brief Google search to find. Personal anecdote: my wife (raised Catholic, but currently in a Presbyterian church) got a call from her mom (Catholic) who urged her not to vote for Kerry. Her church (the mom's church, not my wife's church) told her that it's a sin to vote for someone who would allow abortions, and she (my wife's mom) was worried about my wife's immortal soul. I try to stay out of these discussions when we go visit them on the holidays.
I don't have any problem with any "Get Out the Vote" campaign. In fact, even with the line of thinking behind the evangelical campaign, I'm happy they voted. I'm not upset they voted; I'm upset with their reason for voting. Predominantly black churches worked to drive up voter registration because they felt that one candidate or another would be better for their interests, which really had nothing to do with religion. It was organized through the church, but not to legislate their religious beliefs. The evangelicals organized specifically to put their beliefs into law. That's what disappoints me, not the fact that the church organized it.
I clearly stated "the DNC...". Look in my original post. How is "Most people voted for Bush because they believe he is the best choice for the country. John Kerry was unable to either convince them that he was a better choice or to scare them that Bush would destroy the country" a talking point. To me, a talking point is trying to summarize everything that happens in the minds of all the voters by saying "Overwhelmingly, people voted for George Bush because A: their church organized them to, or B: they hate/are afraid of gay people." See above. Those are the simplistic preconceptions I am talking about. We agree on the role of religion in schools and government.
That is the problem that people don't get. Government has to be in the morality business. If we have laws against theft and murder, for example, we are in the morality business. Racial discrimination? Morality business. Basic human rights? Morality business. And so on. If we want a civilized society, we have to be in the morality business. Once we accept that, the question is, to what degree do we want to be in the morality business, and whose morality is it that we agree to uphold. That is where our democratic debate has to go. We have to seek compromise and a common denominator. But unless you want anarchy and lawlessness, don't tell me that government shouldn't be in the morality business.