Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 18:54:50 GMT -5
Here's what some other sincere religious believers say.
"The sin of miscegenation is irreversible. Interracial marriage is the single greatest challenge to the authority of God, Scripture, and the undeniable and empirical proof of nature. God, Scripture, and nature stand against the interracial cohabitation of the distinct races God created. The future of every race is challenged by the irreversible mixing of the genetic bank found in God’s original design for each race. Preserving God’s original design for every separate race is imperative. The genetic heritage of every race is directly impacted by miscegenation. Buzz words such as racist and racism are irrelevant to this discussion. Any attempt to obfuscate the issue with smear words is detrimental to the well-being of every separate race God created"
Edit - At a guess, they are less than happy with the 'Black Mafia'.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 19:39:57 GMT -5
That's certainly more open minded than some religions have been. Still, I don't think it should be considered a sin. Doesn't a sin have to be a willful act? I know some will disagree, but I don't think anybody wakes up and decides to be gay. People are born that way, just as the rest of us are born with an attraction to the opposite sex. For the religious, doesn't that mean that God decided that certain people were going to be born gay? (I suppose that's why some religious people insist that homosexuality is a choice.) Why would a religion then declare that certain people should be denied the chance at a full, happy life? Shouldn't their gripe be with God for not making everybody just like them? Within reason, I think religions should be free to write their own doctrines. They get to decide what is and what is not moral. But defining an inborn trait as immoral is going too far. Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It is not a sin. The "willful act" thing is a subject of theological discussion, but I'll just say those who claim faith in the Christian God don't get to define sin. That would be His job. Regarding homosexuality, I don't believe the Bible ever says that it is a sin to be a homosexual. It is the act that is called sin. The act is an "abomination" because it goes against the order of God's creation. Take that for what you will. With your "within reason" statement you've got me scared. Who decides what is within reason? Presumably an impartial panel of Real Smart People, preferably atheist. Wait, no, let's make it The Government™. That should make all doctrines safe for human consumption, no? Ok, I'm needling. "Within reason" is imprecise, but the concept is simple enough. You have a right to worship as you choose. I believe in your right, no matter which God you choose to follow or not follow, and I'll do what I can to defend your right. But your right ends when you infringe on others' rights. You can go to your church. You can call acts an abomination or anything else you like. But you are not free to restrict public access and discriminate against those that you and your fellow (insert name of religion here) deem unworthy. If a group of Muslim terrorists started carrying out acts of jihad in Louisiana, you would not be quoting the Koran to me. You would not be justifying their actions with theology. You would instinctively know that the victims of the misguided Muslims have rights that trump religious rights, and you would be looking at law enforcement or the military to stop the jihad, and if any of them lived, you'd then look to the legal system for appropriate retribution. Would you quote the Old Testament to me in defense of a man who cut off his wife's hands because she got involved in a fight or a man who kills a woman for lying about her virginity? Would you quote The Big Book of Satan in defense of devil worshipers who sacrificed animals (and maybe young virgins)? Religious people have every right to their beliefs, but they don't get to impose their religion on others. So who gets to decide what is within reason? I suppose that would have to be the courts. I'd rather the government stayed out of it, but when you have "religious rights" bills being introduced that endorse religious discrimination and infringement of others' rights, I think the only remedy is a legal one.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 20:23:19 GMT -5
Can't we talk about something from this century? Like Chris Matthews used to be a Bush loving, Hillary hating conservative? What's up with that? I was watching Matthews when you were still making gay jokes and trust me, that never happened. There was a time when he was fair to both sides but not in this century. I guess you're right about the timing. Matthews began his television career under Roger Ailes, the mastermind behind FOX News, on CNBC in '94. His program switched to Hardball three years later. I'm not sure when he moved to MSNBC. From Wikipedia: Matthews has said, "I'm more conservative than people think I am.... I voted for George W. in 2000."[22] Salon.com has called him the "most conservative voice" on MSNBC's primetime lineup.[23] Matthews has been accused by Media Matters for America[24] of having panels of guests that skew to the right and of supporting Republicans in his own questions and comments.[25][26]
... On January 9, 2008, the morning after Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, Matthews appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and said of Clinton,
I'll be brutal, the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit.[44][45]I'm reading "The Republican Noise Machine," copyright 2004. It's not a great book but it does have some interesting parts. At the time of the writing the left had no equivalent to FOX News (MSNBC had not yet converted to a liberal biased news/opinion channel). And Chris Matthews was a conservative voice. The Chris Matthews part surprised me.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 28, 2015 21:39:16 GMT -5
I have no plans or intention to ever visit, do business in, pass thru, or (lord forbid ) even retire in Indiana... (Sorry, hoosiers. While I'd like to swim at the quarry where a few scenes from Breaking Away were filmed, it's not really a bucket list thing.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 22:33:16 GMT -5
To cut a long story short, many Christian Conservatives do not approve of equality before the law for gay people and the dustbin of history for those thoughts is just through that door over there on the right.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 28, 2015 22:36:12 GMT -5
I just hope the boycott of Indiana is as successful as the one of Chik-fil-A.
Speaking of that, a tasty chicken sandwich would be kind of nice right now.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 29, 2015 5:11:46 GMT -5
If a group of Muslim terrorists started carrying out acts of jihad in Louisiana, you would not be quoting the Koran to me. You would not be justifying their actions with theology. You would instinctively know that the victims of the misguided Muslims have rights that trump religious rights, and you would be looking at law enforcement or the military to stop the jihad, and if any of them lived, you'd then look to the legal system for appropriate retribution. Would you quote the Old Testament to me in defense of a man who cut off his wife's hands because she got involved in a fight or a man who kills a woman for lying about her virginity? Would you quote The Big Book of Satan in defense of devil worshipers who sacrificed animals (and maybe young virgins)? Those examples don't apply. Acts of jihad and so forth are criminal acts. This is more about the tension of rights, like any constitutional right. Don't go Dougian on me and say it's black and white.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 6:53:33 GMT -5
I posted this on a friend's FB thread but thought I'd do it here, not that anyone cares:
While I find the law abhorrent, out-and-out wrong and counter to the tide of history, I'd be more in favor of a targeted boycott instead of just cutting off all business with Indiana. I understand the attraction (and effectiveness) of general boycotts, and there are times when they are necessary. But I grew up 30 miles from the Indiana border and was educated there and still have a lot of friends there, and they oppose the law. I'd much rather people start an online registry of discriminatory businesses and not only refuse to patronize the businesses but actively tell them -- via letter, email or phone call -- that they won't have any of your business and you'll use social media, including Yelp, to tell the world why. I have a hard time harming businesses that reject discrimination and serve everyone, and there are plenty of them in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 29, 2015 7:16:43 GMT -5
...beside the fact that the new law doesn't open up the opportunity for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 29, 2015 7:19:48 GMT -5
I posted this on a friend's FB thread but thought I'd do it here, not that anyone cares: While I find the law abhorrent, out-and-out wrong and counter to the tide of history, I'd be more in favor of a targeted boycott instead of just cutting off all business with Indiana. I understand the attraction (and effectiveness) of general boycotts, and there are times when they are necessary. But I grew up 30 miles from the Indiana border and was educated there and still have a lot of friends there, and they oppose the law. I'd much rather people start an online registry of discriminatory businesses and not only refuse to patronize the businesses but actively tell them -- via letter, email or phone call -- that they won't have any of your business and you'll use social media, including Yelp, to tell the world why. I have a hard time harming businesses that reject discrimination and serve everyone, and there are plenty of them in Indiana. If enough people don't do business with businesses that they don't like the business goes under. Can't run a business with no customers. On the personal level money rules. People vote both at the polls and with their feet to protect "their" money.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 29, 2015 7:55:43 GMT -5
If a group of Muslim terrorists started carrying out acts of jihad in Louisiana, you would not be quoting the Koran to me. You would not be justifying their actions with theology. You would instinctively know that the victims of the misguided Muslims have rights that trump religious rights, and you would be looking at law enforcement or the military to stop the jihad, and if any of them lived, you'd then look to the legal system for appropriate retribution. Would you quote the Old Testament to me in defense of a man who cut off his wife's hands because she got involved in a fight or a man who kills a woman for lying about her virginity? Would you quote The Big Book of Satan in defense of devil worshipers who sacrificed animals (and maybe young virgins)? Those examples don't apply. Acts of jihad and so forth are criminal acts. This is more about the tension of rights, like any constitutional right. Don't go Dougian on me and say it's black and white. I used extreme examples to make my point. I'd didn't think talking about observing Passover or praying to the east would get me anywhere. But it doesn't look like extreme examples got me anywhere either. So criminal acts are where we draw the line? If a religious belief causes personal injury, then it's okay to override a person's religious freedom, but mere faith-based discrimination should be tolerated and even encouraged through state legislation? So you're with Doug in that the segregated South worked fine just the way it was and that private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks based on religion or any other belief, so long as nobody is injured? The more you and others argue about shades of discrimination, segregation works fine, the new law is toothless, wouldn't actually be used and doesn't target gays, etc., the more I can see how naive I was a few pages ago when I said the government should stay out of it, that public opinion can be changed through open discourse and protest. What a dummy I am. We'd still have slavery if we'd listened to people like me. Slavery, segregation and interracial marriage are all good examples of how things actually work in America. Religion was used to justify all those practices. People protested those discriminatory practices, and people were killed because they protested. It took the government's intervention to abolish the practices, then it took generations for people's attitudes to change, to accept that color-based discrimination was wrong. Accepting that gays have the same rights as the rest of us and that we cannot impose our religions on others will be no different.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 29, 2015 8:04:21 GMT -5
Seriously? I thought we were having a discussion. I see where you're coming from. No problem there. I guess I haven't been clear enough for you to see where I'm coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 29, 2015 8:04:23 GMT -5
I posted this on a friend's FB thread but thought I'd do it here, not that anyone cares: While I find the law abhorrent, out-and-out wrong and counter to the tide of history, I'd be more in favor of a targeted boycott instead of just cutting off all business with Indiana. I understand the attraction (and effectiveness) of general boycotts, and there are times when they are necessary. But I grew up 30 miles from the Indiana border and was educated there and still have a lot of friends there, and they oppose the law. I'd much rather people start an online registry of discriminatory businesses and not only refuse to patronize the businesses but actively tell them -- via letter, email or phone call -- that they won't have any of your business and you'll use social media, including Yelp, to tell the world why. I have a hard time harming businesses that reject discrimination and serve everyone, and there are plenty of them in Indiana. That could work too. I'd like to see it coupled with whoever suggested earlier that any business that wants to discriminate must first prominently display notice that they do not serve gays, blacks, browns, women, Hindus or whoever it is they plan to discriminate against.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 29, 2015 8:06:47 GMT -5
Seriously? I thought we were having a discussion. I see where you're coming from. No problem there. I guess I haven't been clear enough for you to see where I'm coming from. Maybe I'm missing it. What I see is you arguing for religion, but it comes at the expense of others' rights. Sometimes I need to be hit just a little harder over the head with a point before I get it though, so get a bigger stick if you like.
|
|
|
Post by mnhermit on Mar 29, 2015 8:08:52 GMT -5
Oh, it's about religion. Sorry I asked.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 29, 2015 8:28:02 GMT -5
Seriously? I thought we were having a discussion. I see where you're coming from. No problem there. I guess I haven't been clear enough for you to see where I'm coming from. Maybe I'm missing it. What I see is you arguing for religion, but it comes at the expense of others' rights. Sometimes I need to be hit just a little harder over the head with a point before I get it though, so get a bigger stick if you like. Not my style.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 29, 2015 8:30:51 GMT -5
Evan, a thought just hit me. My earlier post about slavery and segregation could look like I'm implying that you're okay with those practices. I'm pretty sure nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not implying that you're racist even a little bit. I brought it up because I think you would never support those practices. They were examples of discrimination short of personal injury that I think we both agree are wrong on a moral, religious, or any other basis.
I agree with you that there are shades of grey on the issue. You used criminal acts as a cutoff. I think I moved the line when I brought up slavery and segregation. I don't know exactly where you'd draw the line. My line is where somebody's religion restricts the rights of somebody else.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 29, 2015 8:32:47 GMT -5
Evan, a thought just hit me. My earlier post about slavery and segregation could look like I'm implying that you're okay with those practices. Which is why I took the bait and responded. I have thought better of it and deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 29, 2015 8:36:10 GMT -5
John, I was about to suggest that maybe you've had a little too much coffee, but to hold on while I chug a pot or two. But the post went poof!
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Mar 29, 2015 8:37:43 GMT -5
Now this post makes no sense since John deleted his
While my great grandfather, the Reverend Francis Asbury Shoup, felt compelled to move south from Indiana and join the CSA to defend slavery. You cannot claim religion was responsible for ending slavery while religion was also busy defending it. Even today my sister and her wife were denied joining the most liberal church in this county after having attended and volunteered for more than a year in the church.
|
|