Will Christians be protected from Gay social goals?

[Mere_Christian]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

[East of Eden]

Indulging the ridiculous notion of "religious children"...

Know many atheist children?

are you ready to let every child perform their own religious rites in the classroom? Or just the ones that match yours?

My preference would be a non-sectarian prayer, you know, like Congress does every day.

[Beto]

Indulging the ridiculous notion of "religious children"...

Know many atheist children?

I indulge the notion for the sake of this particular issue, but that's as far as I'm willing to go in this thread. Nothing against you, personally.

are you ready to let every child perform their own religious rites in the classroom? Or just the ones that match yours?

My preference would be a non-sectarian prayer, you know, like Congress does every day.

Your preference is very noble... but suppose a Muslim family (or even a Christian one) does not wish for a non-sectarian prayer. How would you accomodate their wishes for the sake of their "free exercise of religion"?

[cnorman18]

For example? What "secular dogma" has been forced upon Christians in American law that interferes with the practice of your religion?

Off the top of my head, the ridiculuous 1962 ruling against prayer in schools interfered with the free excercise of religion of children whose parents pay for those schools.

A common misrepresentation of that ruling. The Supreme Court never said that no one could pray in school; you, your children, and anyone else can pray in school or anywhere else that you like. The existence of "prayer groups" and even Bible-study groups in public schools has been sanctioned by the Court, which proves that to be a misrepresentation of that ruling.

What the Court said was that public prayer may not be mandated by the State, and that the content of prayer may not be determined or written by state officials.

And their convictions were shared by others without regard to religion. Religious concerns and ethical concerns of nonreligious people are not mutually exclusive. The Civil Rights Act was not passed by Congress because it was a Christian initiative. It passed because it was right, according to Christians and nonChristians alike.

But according to your argument, Christian involvement in the Civil Rights movement was wrong because they were trying to make their religiously-motivated views the law.

No, I did not. The fact that Dr. King was motivated by religious beliefs did not make it ipso facto "wrong." The effort to restrict the right of gays to marry is not wrong because it is religiously motivated; it is wrong because that is its only motivation, and it seeks to impose religious beliefs upon those who do not share them in order to abrogate their rights.

Dr. King's motivation may have been primarily religious, but it was also a concern for justice, and which sought to affirm the rights of everyone, as opposed to limiting those of some, as the segregation laws inarguably did.

The motivation of those who supported the Civil Rights movement is irrelevant. The salient fact is that the Civil Rights act passed because the majority of people in the US, regardless of religious affiliation, agreed that it was just.

BTW, your above statement could also be applied to opposition to gay marriage, which is also opposed by the non-religious. I'm assuming 54% of the population of CA is not evangelical Christian.

Doesn't matter. The rights of Americans are not determined by majority vote, but by majority vote and the Constitution.

You are aware, are you not, that the Civil Rights Act was vehemently opposed by most conservative Southern Christians at the time?

They were wrong, and were not acting on the teachings of Jesus, the Golden Rule, etc., just as some today disregard the Bible's teaching on homosexual activity.

Perhaps the Christians of the future will also agree that present Christian efforts to discriminate against and abridge the rights of homosexuals are equally wrong. The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct.

The point is made; Christians ought not have the right or the power to enforce their religious beliefs upon the general public, even if the majority of Christians agree that they should.

If the fundamentalist Christians of Dr. King's day had been able to impose their will on the law, segregation would still be in effect.

During Wilberforce's lifetime and afterward, slavery was also overwhelmingly supported by American Christians in the Southern United States. Your examples are poorly chosen.

Doesn't invalidate my point that King and Wilberforce worked to make their religious convictions law.

And that is a right I would die to protect. That doesn't mean that I think all such efforts are automatically to be supported or ought to become law.

No, but a referendum opposing same-sex marriage has failed, in a way. "Protect Marriage Illinois" was unable to even gather enough signatures to get a gay-marriage referendum on the ballot in both 2006 and 2008.

Since a referendem on same-sex marriage has never passed even among the general population, why do you say you doubt the majority of Christians would vote against it?

Because even in Illinois, which is hardly the hotbed of liberalism that, say, San Francisco is, they couldn't even get enough support for it so get it on the ballot?

In conservative areas such as the South, such measures are easy to pass. Whether or not they will survive judicial review is another question, and since most Americans live on the coasts, which are primarily liberal, I doubt such a national law could pass anyway.

I could be wrong, but I still think that any law which is based on sectarian religious beliefs will be struck down by the Supreme Court, even a conservative Court.

"Christians, who oppose discrimination against gays do not necessarily "approve of same-sex homosexual activity"... but may simply not think that their own standards ought to be enforced by the law upon those who do not share them."

It may apply to some Christians, that's their business how they vote just as how I vote is my business.

Which is, of course, my point. You don't get to force your beliefs on others, not even other Christians.

Those who have an interest sometimes delete or ignore pertinent information, just as you have here.

I'm not obligated to respond to every post, jot and tittle you produce, especially the ones that don't make sense.

Non sequitur. You asked why I thought information from unbiased sources is more reliable, and I told you. My point was that pertinent information can be ignored, dismissed, or suppressed by those which are not unbiased, and you are proving that point again right here.

You are not obligated to respond to every point; but if you wish to be taken seriously in debate, you are obligated to show how those points are not worthy of response or "don't make sense." If you merely ignore them, it can be assumed that you have no effective argument against them and that they stand unrefuted.

[East of Eden]

Your preference is very noble... but suppose a Muslim family (or even a Christian one) does not wish for a non-sectarian prayer. How would you accomodate their wishes for the sake of their "free exercise of religion"?

We have a Muslim in Congress now who I presume manages to get buy with the opening prayer. The schools are full of many things certain people object to. So what?

[JoeyKnothead]

Your preference is very noble... but suppose a Muslim family (or even a Christian one) does not wish for a non-sectarian prayer. How would you accomodate their wishes for the sake of their "free exercise of religion"?

We have a Muslim in Congress now who I presume manages to get buy with the opening prayer. The schools are full of many things certain people object to. So what?

Would you object to your child attending a public school where he was required to pray Muslim prayers? Would you object if he was required to pray to Satan?

Which prayers are acceptable, and which are not?

[East of Eden]

A common misrepresentation of that ruling. The Supreme Court never said that no one could pray in school; you, your children, and anyone else can pray in school or anywhere else that you like. The existence of "prayer groups" and even Bible-study groups in public schools has been sanctioned by the Court, which proves that to be a misrepresentation of that ruling.

What the Court said was that public prayer may not be mandated by the State, and that the content of prayer may not be determined or written by state officials.

Of course I meant school-led prayer. It was an idiotic court decision, and an example of government by whim. How can it be unconstitutional for this to take place in schools but not in Congress? How does a non-sectarian prayer constitute the Federal government establishing a state religion?

Less than 24 hours after the First Congress approved the First Amendment, they passed this resolution: "Rresolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the US, to request that he would recommend to the people of the US a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness." In the proclamation announcing the "day of public thanksgiving and prayer" that Congress had requested, President Washington declared November 26 "to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be."

It never occured to the First Congress that their call for public prayer would conflict with the amendment they had adopted a day earlier prohibiting "an establishment of religion".

Doesn't matter. The rights of Americans are not determined by majority vote, but by majority vote and the Constitution.

As the Constitution is silent on both school prayer and 'gay' marriage, the matters should be left to the people.

Perhaps the Christians of the future will also agree that present Christian efforts to discriminate against and abridge the rights of homosexuals are equally wrong. The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct.

They were wrong, just as those Christians today who try to excuse homosexual activity.

The point is made; Christians ought not have the right or the power to enforce their religious beliefs upon the general public, even if the majority of Christians agree that they should.

As I've said before, religious people tend to value religious values. What motivates their vote is none of your business.

And that is a right I would die to protect. That doesn't mean that I think all such efforts are automatically to be supported or ought to become law.

As best as I can tell, you believe 'liberal' causes supported by Christians are a good thing, 'conservative' issues supported by Christians are bad, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

Because even in Illinois, which is hardly the hotbed of liberalism that, say, San Francisco is, they couldn't even get enough support for it so get it on the ballot?

You have got to be kidding me. I lived in Illinois most of my life, and I can assure you it is the bluest of blue states. Its not a coincidence they elected the former most liberal member of the US Senate, Mr. HopeChange himself, our president. The other IL Senator has a 6 rating from the American Conservative Union.

Which is, of course, my point. You don't get to force your beliefs on others, not even other Christians.

But you are happy to try and force your beliefs on gay marriage on the US.

Non sequitur. You asked why I thought information from unbiased sources is more reliable, and I told you. My point was that pertinent information can be ignored, dismissed, or suppressed by those which are not unbiased, and you are proving that point again right here.

I don't think there is such a thing as a non-biased person. You are simply making an ad hominen argument.

You are not obligated to respond to every point; but if you wish to be taken seriously in debate, you are obligated to show how those points are not worthy of response or "don't make sense." If you merely ignore them, it can be assumed that you have no effective argument against them and that they stand unrefuted.

And as usual, you assume wrong.

[East of Eden]

Your preference is very noble... but suppose a Muslim family (or even a Christian one) does not wish for a non-sectarian prayer. How would you accomodate their wishes for the sake of their "free exercise of religion"?

We have a Muslim in Congress now who I presume manages to get buy with the opening prayer. The schools are full of many things certain people object to. So what?

Would you object to your child attending a public school where he was required to pray Muslim prayers?

This is not a Muslim nation. The US is statistically more Christian than Egypt is Muslim or India is Hindu.

Would you object if he was required to pray to Satan?

Why, are you advocating that?

Which prayers are acceptable, and which are not?

I've already said I would prefer a non-sectarian school prayer, which makes your above two questions moot.

[cnorman18]

What the Court said was that public prayer may not be mandated by the State, and that the content of prayer may not be determined or written by state officials.

...It was an idiotic court decision, and an example of government by whim.

Why is it idiotic?

Do YOU believe that people should be legally required to pray when and as the government directs them to?

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Boy Scouts had the right to exclude gays. Was that "government by whim" as well?

For the record, I absolutely support both decisions as right and proper.

How can it be unconstitutional for this to take place in schools but not in Congress?

Congress routinely exempts itself from legislation, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over its internal practices.

How does a non-sectarian prayer constitute the Federal government establishing a state religion?

That it establishes religion at all, which government-mandated prayer inarguably does, makes it unconstitutional.

Less than 24 hours after the First Congress approved the First Amendment, they passed this resolution:

...

A resolution of Congress is not a binding law; it amounts to a publicly stated opinion, and has no legal impact. No one was or is required to participate in public prayer at Thanksgiving. That was not true of school prayer.

Doesn't matter. The rights of Americans are not determined by majority vote, but by majority vote and the Constitution.

As the Constitution is silent on both school prayer and 'gay' marriage, the matters should be left to the people.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine how the principles of the Constitution are to be applied, even on matters where that document is not explicit. On the matter of school prayer, that has been done. On gay marriage, it has not, yet, but no doubt eventually will.

Perhaps the Christians of the future will also agree that present Christian efforts to discriminate against and abridge the rights of homosexuals are equally wrong. The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct.

They were wrong, just as those Christians today who try to excuse homosexual activity.

That is your opinion. It remains to be seen if you are right. Those who thought that the Bible supported slavery were no less certain than you - and they could make a better case for it.

The point is made; Christians ought not have the right or the power to enforce their religious beliefs upon the general public, even if the majority of Christians agree that they should.

As I've said before, religious people tend to value religious values. What motivates their vote is none of your business.

Did I say it was? My point is that the religious beliefs of others is none of YOUR business, and the Constitution prohibits the imposition of religious beliefs or practices on anyone.

And that is a right I would die to protect. That doesn't mean that I think all such efforts are automatically to be supported or ought to become law.

As best as I can tell, you believe 'liberal' causes supported by Christians are a good thing, 'conservative' issues supported by Christians are bad, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

And you would be wrong. Politically, I identify myself as primarily conservative. I just don't believe that religious beliefs ought to be enforced by law - and I also think of that as a conservative position. I believe in freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly. I also very much believe in the Second Amendment, and the other eight as well, including the Fourth, that of "equal protection under the law," which I think a ban on gay marriage violates and under which provision such bans will eventually be overturned.

I strongly believe that you should have the right to believe and practice as you choose and campaign for any legislation you like; but I do not believe that imposing sectarian religious beliefs upon those who do not share them is either right or Constitutional, and I oppose efforts directed to that end.

Because even in Illinois, which is hardly the hotbed of liberalism that, say, San Francisco is, they couldn't even get enough support for it so get it on the ballot?

You have got to be kidding me. I lived in Illinois most of my life, and I can assure you it is the bluest of blue states. Its not a coincidence they elected the former most liberal member of the US Senate, Mr. HopeChange himself, our president. The other IL Senator has a 6 rating from the American Conservative Union.

So the citizens of the state of Illinois should have no say?

We're not talking about a ban-gay-marriage referendum failing; we're talking about it not even getting 300,000 signatures out of however many millions. Apparently the support for your views isn't as strong as you think.

Which is, of course, my point. You don't get to force your beliefs on others, not even other Christians.

But you are happy to try and force your beliefs on gay marriage on the US.

Nice try, but I think people should have the right to decide that issue for themselves.

No one is being forced into same-sex marriages; no churches are being forced to perform or sanctify such marriages; no one is even being forced to stop saying that they think homosexuality is sinful.

Nothing is being forced on you at all.

Non sequitur. You asked why I thought information from unbiased sources is more reliable, and I told you. My point was that pertinent information can be ignored, dismissed, or suppressed by those which are not unbiased, and you are proving that point again right here.

I don't think there is such a thing as a non-biased person. You are simply making an ad hominen argument.

There may be no unbiased people, but there are certainly organizations (which is what we were discussing) which are biased without doubt and which have agendas to promote. There are others which do not. Information from the former is notoriously unreliable. From the latter, not necessarily.

Ad hominem refers to an argument that does not address the issues, but the character or other attributes of the person making it. That has not happened here, except perhaps when you assumed that I was a political liberal who opposed Christianity on principle.

You are not obligated to respond to every point; but if you wish to be taken seriously in debate, you are obligated to show how those points are not worthy of response or "don't make sense." If you merely ignore them, it can be assumed that you have no effective argument against them and that they stand unrefuted.

And as usual, you assume wrong.

"As usual"?

I'll let that stand without comment.

Simple question: If you dismiss and ignore an argument, how have you refuted it?

[McCulloch]

Of course I meant school-led prayer. It was an idiotic court decision, and an example of government by whim.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll take the opinion of the justices of the supreme court over yours though.

How can it be unconstitutional for this to take place in schools but not in Congress?

This has been answered, but I suspect that in due time the error of established prayer in Congress and Parliament will be recognized.

How does a non-sectarian prayer constitute the Federal government establishing a state religion?

Just how truly non-sectarian can you make a prayer? Is such a prayer generically Christian? or is it generically monotheistic?

Perhaps the Christians of the future will also agree that present Christian efforts to discriminate against and abridge the rights of homosexuals are equally wrong. The fundamentalists who opposed civil rights were just as convinced as you that their views were Biblical and correct.

They were wrong, just as those Christians today who try to excuse homosexual activity.

Or they were wrong (to oppose civil rights for slaves) just as they were wrong to oppose civil rights for homosexuals. You see, you cannot win a debate by simply asserting your position.

But you are happy to try and force your beliefs on gay marriage on the US.

But that is not the goal of the gay rights movement. You are still free to declare that gay sex is sinful. Just as Hindus are free to oppose the eating of meat.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 18 Post 177:

Would you object to your child attending a public school where he was required to pray Muslim prayers?

This is not a Muslim nation. The US is statistically more Christian than Egypt is Muslim or India is Hindu.

So to heck with someone else's religious beliefs, as long as the majority can get their opinion voiced?

I take it you would object to your child being asked to participate in a Muslim prayer.

Would you object if he was required to pray to Satan?

Why, are you advocating that?

Asking a question is not advocating anything.

I take it you would object to this type of prayer as well.

Which prayers are acceptable, and which are not?

I've already said I would prefer a non-sectarian school prayer, which makes your above two questions moot.

How can praying to a god be "non-sectarian", given that one "sect" does not believe the god/s involved exist?