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?

[Cathar1950]

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?

Good point, it seems a "non-sectarian" prayer should be to all gods.
Of course Isn't the Muslim god the same as the Hebrew or Christian God?
I believe they all go back to El, I have read that Allah was also Sin the moon god but then again Yahweh inherited El and maybe a little Baal too as well as other attrubutes from the gods of El's pantheon.
If there is only one god then all prayers are really going to God unless the all-knowing all-seeing God is selectively hearing. But then Paul seem to think that is just what God does, He selects those He will save. It makes you wonder about the ritual, and some aggrogance, of repentance and believing when they obviously can't help it any more then those they preach at can't possible see or believe if God has not selected them.

[East of Eden]

Why is it idiotic?

Because the constitution says nothing against a voluntary school prayer. This is judicial activism.

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

Like Congress? If they feel strongly against it, (not many kids would be, unless they're being manipulated by parents with an axe to grind, like Madyln Murray O'Hare's kid, now a pastor, BTW) they should be excused. The 'government' is the wishes of the local school district.

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

No, the Boy Scouts are a private organization.

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

So Congress could theoretically require its members to be Methodists?

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

Which religion is thereby established?

A resolution of Congress is not a binding law; it amounts to a publicly stated opinion, and has no legal impact.

A nonsectarian voluntary prayer in school is some kind of binding law?

No one was or is required to participate in public prayer at Thanksgiving. That was not true of school prayer.

So let it be voluntary. I believe kids in MA have been allowed to opt out of the homosexual agenda classes.

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.

And they determined wrongly, in my opinion.

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 Bible nowhere prohibits freeing of slaves as it prohibits homosexual activity. As my Bible commentary sensibly says, "Both the OT and NT included regulations for societal situations such as slavery and divorce, which were the results of the hardness of hearts. Such regulations did not encourage or condone such situations but were divinely-given, practical ways of dealing with the realities of the day."

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.

So that would apply to the Christian Left who support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, correct?

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.

As I asked above, does your opposition to this 'imposition' extend to liberal Christians wanting gay marriage because their religious interpretation supports it?

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

Where did I say that?

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.

It could have been badly organized, I never heard of it and I lived there until recently. The CA signature effort made it. Despite the red herring, my point stands that a referendum in favor of gay marriage has never passed.

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

Like in the referendums on gay marriage?

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.

I wish that were the case. See the video on the right side of this link regarding Ms. Arlene Elshinnany, it pretty much answers the OP:
http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/

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.

When you question the 'bias' of a source instead of the facts presented, you are making an ad hominem argument.

[East of Eden]

But then Paul seem to think that is just what God does, He selects those He will save.

God wishes everyone would come to repentance. But to reject the word of God is to reject God, and to reject God is to be rejected by God.

[East of Eden]

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

Does that go for the Dred Scott decision?

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

The Australian parliament must really grind you, they start the day with the Lord's Prayer.

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

Ask Obama - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03043.html According to some of you he is establishing a state religion.

You see, you cannot win a debate by simply asserting your position.

I'm expressing my opinion, just as you are.

But that is not the goal of the gay rights movement. You are still free to declare that gay sex is sinful.

Not always. See the video on this page: http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/

[Cathar1950]

But then Paul seem to think that is just what God does, He selects those He will save.

God wishes everyone would come to repentance. But to reject the word of God is to reject God, and to reject God is to be rejected by God.

I am not even sure you understand repentance and as far as we know it is some unspecified ritual and buzz word you use in a ritualistic way.
If God wishes something you would think it would come t pass yet Paul claimed to have been chosen before his birth so it would stand to reason that God rejected those that reject him before they reject him. Granted I think Paul just used Jeremiah to impress his followers.

[McCulloch]

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

Does that go for the Dred Scott decision?

Like science and unlike religion, the decisions of the supreme court are open to review and revision.

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

The Australian parliament must really grind you, they start the day with the Lord's Prayer.

I don't have to go that far. Lord's Prayer proposal crashes Ontario website.

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

Ask Obama - According to some of you he is establishing a state religion.

We've still got a long way to go.

[East of Eden]

But then Paul seem to think that is just what God does, He selects those He will save.

God wishes everyone would come to repentance. But to reject the word of God is to reject God, and to reject God is to be rejected by God.

I am not even sure you understand repentance and as far as we know it is some unspecified ritual and buzz word you use in a ritualistic way.
If God wishes something you would think it would come t pass yet Paul claimed to have been chosen before his birth so it would stand to reason that God rejected those that reject him before they reject him. Granted I think Paul just used Jeremiah to impress his followers.

It's very simple, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved "(Acts 16:31).

[Cathar1950]

But then Paul seem to think that is just what God does, He selects those He will save.

God wishes everyone would come to repentance. But to reject the word of God is to reject God, and to reject God is to be rejected by God.

I am not even sure you understand repentance and as far as we know it is some unspecified ritual and buzz word you use in a ritualistic way.
If God wishes something you would think it would come t pass yet Paul claimed to have been chosen before his birth so it would stand to reason that God rejected those that reject him before they reject him. Granted I think Paul just used Jeremiah to impress his followers.

It's very simple, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved "(Acts 16:31).

If you are going to take the word of the unknown author of Acts but even that is loaded with meaning and if you claim it is simple then you either don't understand it or your reading and interpretaion is limited and selective.
What does "believe" mean? "Lord", "Christ"a and even "Jesus" have and have had differing meanings as well as the word "Believe", it also involves interpretation, all of which you ignore or seem oblivious to.
It is anything but simple and the only thing I am seeing that is simple is your lack of explanation or support for your claims which are not agreed upon even by believers.

[McCulloch]

It's very simple, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved "(Acts 16:31).

How do I do that? I've read the Bible. I have prayed. I am still not convinced that it is true. Can I choose to believe something? If I could choose, why would I chose to believe this rather than, for example, the universalist doctrine that everyone would be saved?

[East of Eden]

If you are going to take the word of the unknown author of Acts

"The opening words of Acts refer to the Gospel of Luke as the first account. And since both accounts are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, we know that Luke, though not signing his name, was the writer of Acts. (Lu 1:3; Ac 1:1)
Both accounts have a similar style and wording. The Muratorian Fragment of the late second century C.E. also attributes the writership to Luke. Ecclesiastical writings of the second century C.E. by Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage, when quoting from Acts, cite Luke as the writer.

Source: Insight on the Scriptures."

but even that is loaded with meaning and if you claim it is simple then you either don't understand it or your reading and interpretaion is limited and selective.
What does "believe" mean? "Lord", "Christ"a and even "Jesus" have and have had differing meanings as well as the word "Believe", it also involves interpretation, all of which you ignore or seem oblivious to.
It is anything but simple and the only thing I am seeing that is simple is your lack of explanation or support for your claims which are not agreed upon even by believers.

'Believe' and 'Jesus Christ' are pretty self-evident. I hope you are not one of them, but some have an interest in keeping the Bible's plain meaning obtuse and at arm's length.