christian nationalism

Sorry Iano, I don't recall that you took this off topic but it is time to STOP it. Lies and hate by anyone here are NOT on topic. Subjective indeed. Your worldview being as subjective to her as hers is to you. Truth/lie. Difficult words to pin down those. For you truth is 99. whatever % sure - on the basis of inferring from evidence. For Faith it is 100% sure based on inferring from the evidence. We can all only deal with the evidence as we find it A natural consequence of your worldview. For you, the bible is not the word of God. But you can only be 99.whatever% sure of that too.Its about evidence which satisfies EZ. And content as you might be with 99.whatever, for some, that is just not enough. Oh but you do. We all do. Where you an invisable bystander when a paedophile coerces a youngster into his car you would listen to soft lying tones, listen to those words, see the lie and hate it for what it is attempting to achieve. Yes, by extension you might 'hate' the person from who the lie issues. But whilst the words flow it is them which you would give anything to be able to prevent from propagating across the airwaves. You would give anything to disturb the air through which the sound propagates. The words would be your most immediate, your most pressing concern.People throw themselves on front of bullets aimed at another. A mother pushes a pram out of the way and takes the oncoming truck to herself. The person behind the trigger or the wheel is not the most immediate concern. The effectual agent is.Faith, I trust, would hate those words but feel compassion and anguish for the state of the person who would be able to issue them. For who couldn't feel compassion for the person who resided 24/7 in a place which could concieve of such words? She would do anything to pour love into that persons heart so as to prevent that heart issuing such words. She would rejoice were the heart to be melted so as not to do so. For she knows she, were she to be judged on her own merit, is as vile as that paedophile herself. Faith knows she is a kettle. How can a kettle call a pot black?Faith hates nobody - she hates the lies that issue forth from them.Edited by AdminNosy, : To insert a topic warning.

Er..Christian nationalism is a...er... lie and not the..er..truth??Okay...I'll get my coat

My point is that the term "hate" as used first in this thread, I forget by whom, RQB or something like that? - is just a species of formulaic political correctness the left likes to tar the right with. Actual hatred is a human feeling and we all hate all kinds of things, things we regard as evil, but this politically correct usage has nothing to do with the feeling of hatred. This is how jar uses it in his new thread:http://EvC Forum: Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution. -->EvC Forum: Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.Nothing but a smear of one's political opponents, casting their views in terms of a personal failure rather than rational consideration of what is good for society which is how those who oppose gay marriage look at it. The left loves emotional accusations, ad hominems, character assassination and demagoguery that whips up hatred for the right among the liberals faster than anything -- speaking of actual hatred.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Sorry, some rewriting for the sake of clarity

Clearly, if 'Christian Nationalism' were allowed to succeed as a movement with its current leadership, we would end up a more discriminatory society with non-Christians being disenfranchized in efforts to bend them to the will of Christian morality. Homosexuals are just the tip of an iceburg that most of us NEVER want to see break the surface. You might defend the basis of this discrimination on certain principles that you view as Christian, but even other Christians apparently disagree with that (Jar for example).
I am wondering how you could rationalize that within the ideal of having a country based on freedom?

Freedom never meant that anyone could do what he liked. That is one way the idea is seriously distorted these days. It never meant having the right to demand some special status from the government, the right to force the majority to accord you a status you believe you should have, the right to anything more than protection of your life and liberty to live as you choose -- and even then, only within the criminal law and community standards.When you get into demanding that the historic definition of marriage be altered to suit your tiny minority lifestyle and falsify its clear meaning over the millennia you have left the domain of natural rights and freedoms. Gay marriage by the way isn't even a specially Christian cause. It may be Christians who most feel the meaning of it in this day and age, but no society ever considered such a thing in the past, no pagan society, no other religion, nobody at all ever. It is insane to treat it as a right and freedom. Common sense ought to tell all you nonChristians this. But something is terribly twisted in the meaning of these fundamentals these days so that you get all up in arms against this enemy you've concocted, a false enemy of a false notion of rights and freedoms.And I do not consider Jar a Christian. Sorry, but it has to be said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I too insist that marriage be kept to its millenia-old definition... the purchasing of a thirteen year old child-bride as property, for the purpose of squeezing out a few puppies to work on the family farm. (And, of course, get some free maid service out of the bargain.)I have had it up to frikkin' here with all this "it's about love and commitment" crap spouted off by people who want to change the definition of marriage.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

right on, man, right on,

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

What we are talking about is EQUAL status, not special status.
You Christians want to deny same sex couples the same rights guaranteed to other couples.Like to the right to visit one another in the hospital if one is injured in a car accident.The right to inherit assets, etc. by virtue of being someone's significant other.According to jar, there are more than 1000 rights and benefits you would deny them.Why can't we find some middle ground like calling it a 'civil union' instead of marriage whereby these same rights can be conferred on same sex couples? The right to live together with someone of the same sex?
How is this anything more than... Sorry, but the things you Christian fundamentalists would like to do with this country can only be inferred to be hazardous to everyone's freedom in diverse respects. The citizenry don't all share your extremist convictions. As soon as you identify some 'freedom' you don't like because it conflicts with your religious teachings, you seek to claim that it is not actually a 'freedom' anyone is entitled to. Just as you have done in your post here. Your bunch is one of the biggest threats to freedom in this country - and a much more direct threat than any risk of terrorism.

We absolutely dispute the whole concept of a "couple" in teh sense of a married couople. Yes. Absolutely. It is not a valid category. It is an absurd and twisted idea. Equal status in relation to this idea is a lie, a sham, a stupidity. That's like saying anybody can call themselves a "couple," children, adult with child, even animals if you like.Nobody said they can't live together. They cannot appropriate the covenant of marriage to their living together. It is YOUR "bunch" you twisted lefties, YOU are the threat to freedom in this country. YOU are the violators and twisters of the Constitution. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Left has turned language and history and law upside down, and the younger generation has swallowed it whole -- the destruction of the very meaning of rights and freedoms. YOU are destroying this nation. YOU are violating the concept of the First Amendment.

That's my whole point Faith.
Your side wants the right to decide what the meaning of 'freedom' is.
That amounts to applying freedom selectively, as you see fit, and at the expense of what others consider their freedom.
That is twisting what freedom really is.
Freedom is the right be free of religious dogma.
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.And that's just one more 'freedom' we would likely lose with Christian Nationalism. Non-christians would face descimination and subtle forms of persecution.But you haven't addressed the other point.
You can't possibly claim that Christian nationalism would do anything to preserve or increase personal freedom in this country.
We already have plenty of examples of how they would diminish freedom. Would there be any increase in freedom we could possibly look forward to in such a movement?And while you're at it... Really? You mean your paranoid concept of us being over-run by muslims?Otherwise, please explain exactly what kind of 'freedom' would be restricted or curtailed by the left.Edited by EZscience, : cut and paste problems

I finally found a linkto this story I read last week.

quote:

---

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

---

Exactly the kind of discrimination we will face more of with Christian Nationalism. Or would you claim that this sort of discrimination does not arise from christian morality being inserted into the legal system?

Why? There are many happy same sex couples raising families in this country. This isn't an idea it's a fact. Most of the rest is just nonsensical ranting. No one is appropriating any covenant of marriage. That is a RELIGIOUS concept. We are talking about marriage as a civil social contract. I am getting married next month and there is absolutely nothing religious involved. More juvenile ranting. I'll have to assume you simply aren't familiar with the constitution or the writings of thomas jefferson.

Marriage presupposes the ability to GENERATE a family. The whole thing is about bringing the two sexes together (oh yeah and the next stupidity is about how some heterosexuals don't have children. Can't wait for that one. Really can't answer it yourself?)This is about the destruction of civilization ultimately. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The ultimate destruction of civilization is more likely to be a consequence of overpopulation than of underpopulation.

no human hate is righteous.