Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 14    Average: 2.6/5]
47 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4727
Rating: 2.6
Category:
Date: 01/22/14 09:04 AM

47 Responses to Are? [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:00 am
    Link: Are? - This might be over the head of some, but good discussion material (hopefully)
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:22 am

    "Will liberals regret pushing Christians out of public life?"
    Tell it to the state of Texas, where christian politicians and activists have completely removed evolution SCIENCE from school textbooks and replaced it with their made up "intelligent design" fake-science.

    This is the new slogan of christian activists, that they are the new "downtrodden" the "disenfranchised" the new "minority". Just because religious people are not allowed to persecute people they don`t like does not mean they are themselves being discriminated against.

    The non-Chrstlike behaving christians do not enjoy the favored position they once held perhaps, but that is a far cry from being "pushed out of public life". In North Carolina the state constitution forbids atheists from holding public office!!! WHO is pushed out of public life?
  3. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:35 am
    This is dishonest from the opening sentence.
  4. Profile photo of drworm2002
    drworm2002 Male 30-39
    662 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:38 am
    Gerry, I don`t agree with you on most things, but on this subject we stand on the same side. For hundreds of years Christians have persecuted most all other groups. When you put your shoe on the other foot it can get pretty uncomfortable.
  5. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:16 am
    drworm,

    The shoe isn`t even on the other foot. They are just being required to take it off the throats of those they disapprove of.

    To them, that is oppression. And of course Odone is writing from the UK where bishops still sit in the second chamber by right of being clergy and the headd of state is also had of the state religion.

    We are becoming more secular, which is good. Holding a belief, religious or otherwise, should not carry privileges or confer exemption to the law.

    ` My findings were shocking: not only Christians, but also Muslims and Jews, increasingly feel they are no longer free to express any belief...`

    Ah, they feel that, do they? It isn`t the case but feelings trump facts in Odone`s world. They are free to express their opinions and the rest of us are free to challenge them without getting invited to an auto da fe. How oppressive of us.

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
    Being held to the same law
  6. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:18 am
    as everybody else is not oppression or marginalisation.

    (dammit, I was well under a thousand.)
  7. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:38 am
    Interesting, I would say this is written by a Colbert type author in an almost satirical way. His point that religion is being abused by the very people it used to abuse is deliciously satirical but I can`t decide if its self aware. He seems to highlight the horrible crimes of religion and extole the virtues of atheism without ever deriding atheism except to say it has effectively positioned itself as the enemy of religion which I would say is true and good on it. I really enjoyed this article.
  8. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:40 am
    Yes I have read this through a second time and I think this is a fine work of satire. Stating poor religion needs sympathy then backing it with arguments that show exactly how horrible religion is. Slow clap....I think.
  9. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:44 am
    RPossum,

    She is a former editor of The Catholic Herald and a very prominent catholic apologist in the UK.
  10. Profile photo of TallColoGuy
    TallColoGuy Male 40-49
    6 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:45 am
    My sincere thanks for posting this article! Why is it Liberals have so much problem with opposing viewpoints even being discussed? Agreed - there has been oppression of same sex views, but does this fact mean that left leaning censorship / thought suppression is any more acceptable? One would think that those who had been once oppressed would be the champions of TRUE free speech and an authentic exchange of ideas - regardless of how foolish or offensive they may appear to us.
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:46 am

    LordJim, "The shoe isn`t even on the other foot. They are just being required to take it off the throats of those they disapprove of. "
    That is the Best Quote Of The Week!!!1
  12. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:51 am
    LordJim, that makes me smile even more, completely self unaware.
    TallColoGuy - One of the only laws in Canada against free speech is the one that says (and I am paraphrasing) "You cannot have a public meeting or forum that promotes hate speech or intolerance". Something like that. If you`re going to have a meeting to discuss religious beliefs great. If in that same meeting you cannot help but promote hate or intolerance of another group then you have a problem.
  13. Profile photo of Dragonace
    Dragonace Male 30-39
    296 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
    Gerry, I agree completely!! I couldn`t have put it better myself.

    The religious fanatics, christians especially, continue to cry that they are being oppressed. Yet the reality of it is, its simply because the rest of society is no longer sitting quietly while religion oppresses them.

    Religions have had a stranglehold on humanity for thousands of years, holding us back from progress, killing and torturing non-believers, etc.... and for the first time in history humanity is starting to wake up and realize how idiotic these religious zealot really are.
  14. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:05 am
    Oh look, the largest religion in the world is once again claiming that they`re being oppressed! Give me a f*cking break, hahaha! If the venue doesn`t agree with the message of any particular group that tries to book them for an event they have every right to say no.
  15. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:17 am
    If there was a "You can`t be a teacher if you are religious" meeting I would expect that to be cancelled as well, or a "You can`t hold public office because your an atheist meeting" or a "You can`t get married if your gay meeting." etc. All worthy of being cancelled as they promote hate of another group.

    But I`m all in for the "Can we allow religious beliefs to be taught in place of evolutionary science" meeting and the "Concepts of traditional marriage versus modern marriage" meeting and the "Are belief systems grounds to bar individuals from public office?" meeting.
  16. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:21 am
    For all my life organized religion has been the single most convincing argument against itself.

    For all my life I have seen & heard nothing but angry, control seeking, downright vicious voices and behavior from those claiming to be moral exemplars for the rest of us. I`ve seen it in the "culture wars" food fight that has been waged over my entire existence.

    Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are far greater threats to Xianity than the Liberal boogeyman they so often like to castigate.

    Do something about those folks maybe. I have seen what they offer and I`m not interested. They no longer have the biggest megaphone and that bothers them, but I for one won`t mourn their passing.
  17. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:26 am

    I`ve made my position clear on the general top, but I also believe in free
    speech. I would defend their right to stand up in a government convention
    center and speak their mind. If the Gay Equal Rights Lobbyists can do it,
    so can the KKK, or the Christian Action League. I have to defend your right
    to disagree with me because I want to keep my right to disagree with you.

    I only draw the line when a law is passed based not on safety but on
    YOUR religious beliefs. Put it this way, Don`t make me pray to your god
    or force those teachings on my children and I won`t make you suck
    cock. Have we got a deal?
  18. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:27 am
    TallColoGuy

    Welcome.

    `Why is it Liberals have so much problem with opposing viewpoints even being discussed?`

    We don`t. Well, I don`t and neither do most of the liberals I know. Are you refering to Odones claim that she was being silenced when a venue cancelled on her? I think you will find that that was because it was booked as a debate on same sex marriage and when it turned out that 100% of the speakers were confirmed anti-ssm and that not a single pro-ssm voice would be heard they felt that
    wasn`t a debate. It was a rally.

    `left leaning censorship / thought suppression`

    Example? Preferably from the US or UK.

    `TRUE free speech`

    Typing `true` in caps doesn`t provide us with clarification.

    Odone is not asking for `an authentic exchange of ideas`. She is complaining that her ideas are being challenged and her ability to discriminate against people on the basis of them is being eroded.
  19. Profile photo of TallColoGuy
    TallColoGuy Male 40-49
    6 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:35 am
    So, Whodat6484,if a property refuses to host a pro-gay group on the grounds that it conflicts with their core values, it is labeled as bigoted and homophobic. But if a property refuses to host a group with Christian viewpoints, it is acceptable? This is incoherent and indefensible. I am trying to think what other world views support suppressing unpopular views they find threatening...oh that`s right...Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. They all agreed to restrict speech they found objectionable. Oh, by the way, they were all oppressed minorities at one time (for those historically challenged among us) and oppressed others when they assumed dominance. If Christianity hurt you or offends you, you have every right to speak out against it. Do not people of faith have the same right of speech?
  20. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:45 am

    This!
    |
    |
    |
    |
    V
  21. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:47 am
    TallColoGuy - Do you not see the flaw in your arguement?
    The gay rally in your example is standing up for themselves. They are not putting anyone down, they are just saying stop putting us down.

    The religious rally is saying my values are against gays. Stop stopping us from putting them down.
  22. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:48 am
    TallColoGuy

    Could you please define `pro-gay` and `Christian viewpoint`?

    Thank you.
  23. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:09 pm
    One sentence stood out- the idea that religious freedom means religious groups can practice and preach according to their religion. Of course they can- and so they can in Great Britain and the USA. What they cannot do is enforce POLICY which makes others who do not share their belief live as if they did. No one expects the church to marry gay couples if they believe it against their faith... but just because some religious members object they honestly believe their opinion trumps all others. Odone was joining a discussion on how to ensure the religious bars on same sex marriage remained in force. She has not been banned from speaking- just certain businesses do not wish to be linked with those who hold such views- not unreasonable I think. There is a tendency to assume that a loss of advantage is the same as active persecution-
  24. Profile photo of TallColoGuy
    TallColoGuy Male 40-49
    6 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:13 pm
    Lord Jim - I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue on this topic. So often the opinions become polarized, and discussion stops.

    For the sake of my comments here, "Pro-Gay" would be used for those groups seeing to promote acceptance of homosexual behavior as normative. `Christian Viewpoint" would refer to those adhering to the traditional view found in the Old and New Testaments that marriage is a divinely ordained institution between a man and a woman, exclusively.

    Please know that, while I am a Christian, I do not agree with any discrimination of those who do not hold my views. In fact, I regularly share adult beverages with several gays and lesbians that I regard as close friends - I love and respect them as people, not because (or despite) their lifestyle. While I do not agree with some of their viewpoints, I accept them. We can discuss them openly without labels or fear that our friendship will diminish with open dialogue.



  25. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:22 pm
    @TallColoGuy - They`re not refusing them because they`re Christians, they`re refusing them because they`re speaking about denying a group of people, gays, the same rights everyone else are entitled to because they`re different.

    I`m an atheist, I know plenty of Christians who have absolutely no problem with equal marriage rights for gay people. In that sense, what this group is promoting is not your typical Christian viewpoint because not all Christians agree with that.
  26. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    @ TallColoGuy - nice beard.
  27. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm
    TallColoGuy - So if everyone got together to have a discussion about passing a law that prevents religious people from gathering to discuss their beliefs, you would have a problem with that but are perfectly okay with people getting together to discuss passing a law which prevents homosexuals from marrying?
  28. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm
    So progressive Xianity, which sees GLBTs as a normal & good part of God`s creation and wishes to preform marriage ceremonies for same are not truly "Christian?" Is that right?

    At this point we have a sectarian feud here, and we cannot privilege one sect over another. No one denomination of Xian can speak for all others. It would be like taking an Amish position and assuming all Greek Orthodox believed similarly.

    Should their religious freedom be protected as well, or not?
  29. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm
    Strikes me that Odone is trying to make a case for discrimination where there is none. She obviously get to speak her mind in public- the discussion which she was to speak at was being had all over the place- with no prohibition. However- it is illegal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation- and her `group` ws discussing what many see as doing exactly that... would you, as a hotel owner, allow a group discussing segregation ( KKK for example) on your premises? Probably not- mud sticks... that is what happened to Odone- and is happening to other bigots- then they cry and wail...
  30. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 1:14 pm
    The OT view was kill gays. The NT view is entirely Paul`s. Most christians I have met assert that OT rules no longer apply because Paul said so.

    Except the bit about the gays. Because Paul said so.

    Jesus, on he other hand, said bugger all about buggery.

    If you have close gay friends I assume you would atend their wedding, gift-wrap a slow-cooker?

  31. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 1:38 pm
    "Shut up," they explained.
  32. Profile photo of ghoulie11
    ghoulie11 Male 18-29
    359 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    I don`t see where religious groups have any say in whether or not gay people can marry. There is a difference between Traditional marriage, being married in the eyes of the Lord, and Legal marriage, being married in the eyes of the state.
  33. Profile photo of soundman655
    soundman655 Male 50-59
    1558 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 2:17 pm
    A big line up of dummies!!
  34. Profile photo of llaa
    llaa Male 30-39
    1664 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 3:11 pm
    OT view was to punish by stoning an unrepentant practitioner of anal sex and only if they were caught and warned and still proceeded to bugger each other.

    Oral sex didn`t count and man on man prison love was ok since due to the circumstances there were not any women around so the men were forgiven since they`d presumably would rather have a woman. I imagine anal tearing was something that doctors in antiquity couldn`t fix so it was a no no.

    Oh and the temple needed to stand for the judgement to be ruled. So for 2000+ years no man caught having anal sex was stoned since the second temple had been destroyed by the Romans.
  35. Profile photo of 747Pilot
    747Pilot Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm
    Well, scriptures do state that before the end there would be a falling away. The wise already see it.
  36. Profile photo of llaa
    llaa Male 30-39
    1664 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm
    Scripture is buillpoo, Paul thought his messiah was coming back in his lifetime. Paul`s dead.
  37. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    This is the new slogan of christian activists, that they are the new "downtrodden" the "disenfranchised" the new "minority".

    They may be irrational, but they`re not necessarily stupid. Claiming victim status for a group is a very effective way to obtain political power. Any group advocacy ideology should at least try it.

    They`re lying, anyway. They prattle about traditional marriage...but there are numerous traditions for marriage from different times and places and in the places their traditions come from, marriage traditionally didn`t involve the church.

    Freedom of speech doesn`t include other people being required to support it by providing a venue for it.

    I`m intolerant of people who are so intolerant that they want the law to force everyone to be obedient to their interpretation of their religion. I`d allow them free speech...and everyone else free speech to revile them.
  38. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 5:27 pm
    To them, that is oppression. And of course Odone is writing from the UK where bishops still sit in the second chamber by right of being clergy and the headd of state is also had of the state religion.

    While that`s true;

    Clergy form less than 3% of the House of Lords, which only has the power to delay a law and only if the government allows it to do so.

    The head of state wields no power in either government or the church.


    Yes, the UK has some dressing up as a religious country. But it`s only dressing up for tradition. The UK is actually a secular country.
  39. Profile photo of JadesDitoyr
    JadesDitoyr Male 18-29
    841 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 7:22 pm
    We all know my stance, I believe that there are constant attacks on Christianity from all sides just as there have always been. There are attacks on everybody, from all sides, just as there have always been.

    What I`m wondering is this: Will you admit that Christians are denied their right to practice their religion when Catholic priests are hauled into jail or fined for refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple?
  40. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Vv Your example is completely unrealistic. Divorce is legal, Catholics do not believe in remarriage after divorce and each and every Catholic house of worship is free to deny sacramental marriage to previously divorced couples. There are no priests being hauled off to jail, there are no fines being levied, it isn`t even on the radar.

    You either don`t understand the relationship between sacramental marriage and Civil marriage, or you actually do and are just using it as a scare tactic for others who are misinformed.

    While I`m on the subject, why is it all the nutball xians are so worked up over GLBT people as "the greatest threat to Marriage" when there are far more divorced people?
  41. Profile photo of JadesDitoyr
    JadesDitoyr Male 18-29
    841 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:08 pm
    Oh, I have far more issues with our eagerness to jump into marriage and then jump out when things start going poorly; but that is a different discussion.

    As for my hypothetical not even being on the radar -

    Elane Photography violated the Human Rights Act by refusing to take photographs at a same-sex couple`s wedding ceremony. The owners of the company are devout Christians (from what I`ve heard, I haven`t met them personally) and do not want to endorse what they feel is a sin.

    They were fined roughly $7,000.

    It isn`t a far step that a wedding venue would be subject to the same law; and then why not Priest?

    See, Divorced isn`t a protected group now. While "The Once-Married" sounds like a totally bitchin` moniker, speaking against the Twice-Married isn`t hate speech. Speaking against homosexuality (in New Mexico) is.
  42. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:29 pm
    They are the owners of a business that serves the public, bound by both state and federal law to provide business to the public without regard to who their customers may be. States and the federal government have the right to regulate businesses.

    They are not representatives of a house of worship and the same rules do not apply. Boo frickin hoo. This is the Amish bus driver`s dilemma, if you don`t believe in driving buses, don`t take the job.

    Slippery slope fallacy, and this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, rather laws regulating public accommodations.
  43. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:54 pm
    To quote the last true Republican, Barry Morris Goldwater, U.S. Senator from Arizona, and the Republican Party`s nominee for President in 1964:

    "I`m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
    And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism"."
  44. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 11:56 pm
    It`s not really targetted at moderate Christians; it`s designed to protect against Muslim`s hate speech.
  45. Profile photo of 747Pilot
    747Pilot Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    January 23, 2014 at 3:54 am
    llaa: your loss.
  46. Profile photo of JadesDitoyr
    JadesDitoyr Male 18-29
    841 posts
    January 23, 2014 at 5:08 am
    @QueenZira
    You know what I love about parties? I don`t have to attend. If I do not support the cause of the party, I don`t have to go.

    Yes, they provide a service in taking pictures at weddings. But they are now forced to attend a celebration of something that they find immoral and abominable. It is forcing them to be in a situation in which they are uncomfortable, potentially causing emotional distress.

    Now, I can understand the statement of "they`re not representatives of a house of worship"; but the Majority Opinion on the NMSC ruling doesn`t provide that caveat. A Priest is just reading a script at a wedding, that`s just a service. (Especially if you don`t believe in their God.) Why *should* he be allowed to refuse a homosexual couple?

    I`m not arguing a slippery slope, I`m stating that by the wording of the Law, and the words of the Majority Opinion, the door is opened for a Catholic Priest today to be fined for this. Will it happen,
  47. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    January 23, 2014 at 9:31 am
    The point is that they are not even allowed to discuss a controversial subject in open discussion. The hunted have become the hunters. Apparently, it matters not what any other opinion is; it must conform or be beaten down. My how the tables have turned for the so-called tolerant left. And they still do not understand the true Christian stance on gay marriage. It begins and ends with compassion in all things. As always I will still pray for you`all.

Leave a Reply