|
Author
|
Topic: Laws in the US that restrict the rights of Christians
|
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
Re: bias, oppression and discrimination
Eventually a law passed stating that negro's were only 2/3 human. 3/5ths.
Somehow the reverse doesn't work, as people want to impose taxes on churches. because they're businesses, and some of them are disgustingly successful. since they're not following jesus and are turning profit, tax, tax, tax.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2007 10:18 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 32 of 84 (422705)
09-18-2007 1:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
09-17-2007 5:12 PM
|
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
The Defense of Marriage Act directly targets groups as do any sodomy laws. Listen to the name of the act-- the Defense of Marriage Act. The only one imposing their morality on anyone, as it were, seems to be the opposing side. At most, people are abrogating the proposal. Since marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman, the imposition is all on the other side of the table-- and as if it were Christianity making up these rules. This has been the way it is since the dawn of mankind. You can't very well implicate Christians as the sole proprietor.
And Christians try constantly to have other oppressive laws passed to deny human rights to groups they disapprove of. Since you claim to be a Christian, do you implicate yourself?
"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by jar, posted 09-17-2007 5:12 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 1:06 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2007 1:26 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:09 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 9:10 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 40 by Coragyps, posted 09-20-2007 9:24 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
Sorry, but the Law restricts others. It is Christianity twisting words to force their beliefs on others. If gays are allowed to marry, it does not harm anyone. It does not force the Christians to do anything. It is a clear example of Christian oppression. AbE: missed this:
Since you claim to be a Christian, do you implicate yourself? Only when I do not speak out against the perversion of Christ's teaching that is so common today. Edited by jar, : missed part
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 1:03 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
quote:
Listen to the name of the act-- the Defense of Marriage Act.
Right. And we all know a politician would NEVER use wording to obfuscate an issue. Certainly not in the name of a piece of legislation. Why, if it says, "defense," why then, there must be something under attack! Question: If people of the same sex can get married, how does that stop people of the opposite sex from getting married? Be specific. The request is for you to show how your rights are being taken away. How does another couple getting married take away your right to get married? This was the same argument used to "defend" marriage from interracial couples. That if we allow people of different races to get married, it will somehow affect people of the same race getting married. Tell us...since interracial marriage is no longer a crime, has it affected your ability to marry someone of your own race? What is it that needs to be "defended"? What is the attack? Be specific.
quote:
Since marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman
No, it hasn't. You need to re-read your Boswell. The rites in the Christian church for same-sex marraige were being performed just 200 years ago.
quote:
You can't very well implicate Christians as the sole proprietor.
But Christians are the ones claiming they are being persecuted if people of the same sex are allowed to marry. Therefore, the burden of proof is on them to show that they are. What is it that needs to be "defended"? What is the attack? Be specific.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 1:03 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by nator, posted 09-20-2007 7:21 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: bias, oppression and discrimination
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
quote:
Somehow this turned in to a one-sided debate where only the protection of the state is highly regarded.
Evidence, please? You might want to look into the work of the ACLU to see how they fight to defend the rights of those who wish to practice their religion. Even Christians. Remember the last round of O'Reilly's "War on Christmas"? He claimed that as an example of Christians being oppressed, a group of students at a high school were punished for handing out candy canes with Bible verses attached. Guess who came to defend them? That's right: The ACLU. [of course, this leads one to wonder why O'Reilly didn't mention that fact...plus the fact that the ACLU won their case...but that's off topic.] The idea that the First Amendment is a "one-sided debate" is disingenuous at best.
quote:
You are trying to make it so that Judeo-Christian ethics can't be regarded in a secular setting.
Incorrect. You are making two errors. The first is one of general concept, that Christian ethics (let us please not be disingenuous and claim that Judaism and Christianity are practically identical in their theology and sense of ethics. The term "Judeo-Christian" was invented in the 50s in an attempt to show that we weren't like those "atheist Commies" and to help show that the US, fresh out of WW II, was welcoming to the Jews we took in)...that Christian ethics cannot be discussed in a secular setting. Of course they are. One cannot intelligently discuss American literature without referencing Christianity. "Sinners in the hands of an angry god" is one of the classics of early American writing. It cannot be understood outside of the context in which it was written. But the second error is one of specificity: That the assumption is that it is appropriate to instill Christian ethics into the population. A perfect example showing how the two errors fail in reality is the fact that many schools (both of my high schools, for example) have "Bible as Literature" as a class. Just as there is a class that studies the Iliad and the Odyssey, there is a class that studies the Bible as a piece of literature. Thus, you necessarily discuss the ethical mores entrenched in the specific agrarian race (bonus points for those that catch the reference), but you don't treat it as if it were a sermon. Do you not understand the difference? Go ahead and talk about the Bible, but it will be treated exactly like every other piece of cultural heritage. And students, of course, are free to talk amongst themselves as much as they wish. As the cliche goes, so long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in school.
quote:
They fled from religious persecution.
Not quite. They fled societies that refused to accept their religious persecution. Please tell me that I don't have to explain that refusing to accept intolerance is not intolerance.
quote:
The last thing they wanted was to force others, via the law, for people to conform to their brand of religiosity.
Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The first and foremost thing they wanted was to force others, via the law, to conform to their brand of religiosity. Neither England nor the Netherlands would accept this, so they ran away to a place where they could. Why on earth do you think the Quakers were kicked out of Massachusetts?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2007 10:18 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
quote:
Listen to the name of the act-- the Defense of Marriage Act
And then compare it with what the Act is actually about. Is it about adultery and divorce ? Is it about encouraging marriage ? No. It isn't about defending marriage at all. The name is a lie. What you are actually saying here is "believe the lie".
quote:
The only one imposing their morality on anyone, as it were, seems to be the opposing side. At most, people are abrogating the proposal. Since marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman, the imposition is all on the other side of the table-- and as if it were Christianity making up these rules. This has been the way it is since the dawn of mankind. You can't very well implicate Christians as the sole proprietor.
Of course that isn't really true. There are many, many different social arrangements. Even modern marriage is greatly different from other institutions called marriage. Even if you look at the Bible you can see polygamous marriages, concubines, levirate marriages and more that simply isn't recognised in American society (or most of it). The real issue here is that gays and lesbians do form partnerships, equivalent to modern marriages. Some of them have children (from previous marriages or adoption or other means). Why should they not have the rights associated with modern marriages ? It's not for any valid secular reason. It's because of prejudice against gays and lesbians.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 1:03 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
the imposition of morality
The only one imposing their morality on anyone, as it were, seems to be the opposing side. Really? Are gays and lesbians forcing you to behave as if you are gay or lesbian? Or are you (fundamentalist christians) forcing gays and lesbians to behave as if they are not gays and lesbians? Is a system of laws that lets gays and lesbians be gays and lesbians AND that lets fundamentalist christians be fundamentalist christians in any way create a kind of bias, oppression and discrimination against fundamentalist christians? Does a system of laws that lets gays and lesbians be gays and lesbians AND that lets fundamentalist christians be fundamentalist christians in any way impose any morality on either group? Rational answers only please, substantiated with facts (no emotional outrage please). Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 1:03 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
Re: bias, oppression and discrimination
This country has always been characterized as a Christian nation with a strong understanding that allowing its citizens to choose freely its religious affiliations is the best way to run a society. They fled from religious persecution. The last thing they wanted was to force others, via the law, for people to conform to their brand of religiosity. you people really need to stop lying to each other. http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/lawslibertyes.html
CAPITAL LAWES. IF any man after legal conviction shall HAVE OR WORSHIP any other God, but the LORD GOD: he shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 20. Deut. 13. 6. & 10. Deut. 17. 2. 6. 2. If any man or woman be a WITCH, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 18. Levit. 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10. 11. 3. If any person within this Jurisdiction whether Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to BLASPHEME the holy Name of God, Father, Son or Holy-Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or high-handed blasphemy, either by wilfull or obstinate denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world: or shall curse God in like manner, or reproach the holy Religion of God as if it were but a politick device to keep ignorant men in awe; or shal utter any other kinde of Blasphemy of the like nature & degree they shall be put to death. Levit. 24, 15. 16. 4. If any person shall commit any wilfull MURTHER, which is Man slaughter, committed upon premeditate malice, hatred, or crueltie not in a mans necessary and just defence, nor by meer casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21. 12. 13. Numb. 35. 31. 5. If any person slayeth another suddenly in his ANGER, or CRUELTY of passion, he shall be put to death. Levit. 24. 17. Numb. 35. 20. 21. 6. If any person shall slay another through guile, either by POYSONING, or other such develish practice, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21. 14. 7. If any man or woman shall LYE WITH ANY BEAST, or bruit creature, by carnall copulation; they shall surely be put to death: and the beast shall be slain, & buried, and not eaten. Lev. 20, 15. 16. 8. If any man LYETH WITH MAN-KINDE as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shal surely be put to death: unles the one partie were forced (or be under fourteen years of age in which case he shall be seveerly [*6] punished) Levit. 20. 13. 9. If any person commit ADULTERIE with a married, or espoused wife; the Adulterer & Adulteresse shal surely be put to death. Lev. 20. 19. & 18. 20. Deu. 22. 23. 27. 10. If any man STEALETH A MAN, or Man-kinde, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21. 16. 11. If any man rise up by FALSE-WITNES wittingly, and of purpose to take away any mans life: he shal be put to death. Deut. 19. 16. 18. 16. 12. If any man shall CONSPIRE, and attempt any Invasion, Insurrection, or publick Rebellion against our Common-Wealth: or shall indeavour to surprize any Town, or Townes, Fort, or Forts therin; or shall treacherously, & persidiously attempt the Alteration and Subversion of our frame of Politie, or Government fundamentally he shall be put to death. Numb. 16. 2 Sam. 3. 2 Sam. 18. 2 Sam. 20. 13. If any child, or children, above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding, shall CURSE, or SMITE their natural FATHER, or MOTHER; he or they shall be put to death: unles it can be sufficiently testified that the Parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the eduction of such children; or so provoked them by extream, and cruel correction; that they have been forced therunto to preserve themselves from death or maiming. Exod. 21. 17. Lev. 20. 9. Exod. 21. 15. 14. If a man have a stubborn or REBELLIOUS SON, of sufficient years & uderstanding (viz) sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shal his Father & Mother being his natural parets, lay hold on him, & bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court & testifie unto them that their Son is stubborn & rebellious & will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shal be put to death. Deut. 21. 20. 21. 15. If any man shal RAVISH any maid or single womn, cmitting carnal copulation with her by force, against her own will; that is above the age of ten years he shal be punished either with death, or with some other greivous punishmet according to circumstances as the Judges, or General court shal determin. [1641] btw. if you can't read, that means that you would be put to death for being a pagan or for denying the "true god". i promise they weren't very open in their definition of "true god". in other words, their first act as a governing body was to restrict religious freedom. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2007 10:18 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 39 of 84 (423199)
09-20-2007 7:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Rrhain
09-18-2007 1:26 AM
|
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
Here in Hampshire, same-sex civil unions are going to be permitted starting in 2008. I can feel my own heterosexual marriage starting to crumble as I write this, and I am sure that I will be in a bitter divorce battle as a few months after New Years. I mean, once gays are alowed to be in civil unions, my own marriage will have no meaning anymore.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2007 1:26 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by Taz, posted 09-20-2007 12:54 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
Listen to the name of the act-- the Defense of Marriage Act. ROFL! We have the Patriot Act, too! Mr Orwell is smirking in his grave....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 1:03 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 41 of 84 (423233)
09-20-2007 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
09-20-2007 7:21 AM
|
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
Click peek button to see off topic stuff.
schraf writes: Here in Hampshire, same-sex civil unions are going to be permitted starting in 2008.
A little bit on my take on this. People often ask me "So what if we call it a civil union? They get most of the same rights anyway. Why do you care if it's called civil union or marriage?" My answer is "You call whatever that's under your roof a 'civil union'. Either we all drink out of the same drinking fountain or we don't." Compromise is a good thing in most cases. But this is one of those things that shouldn't be compromised. We tried to compromise with slave owners by giving 3/5th of a human status to black people. We tried to compromise with the racists by the "seperate but equal" bullshit. I thought we already made that clear a long time ago that human rights cannot be compromised just to make the bigots (aka christians) happy. Seperate but equal my ass. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by nator, posted 09-20-2007 7:21 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
|
|
Message 42 of 84 (423236)
09-20-2007 1:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by Taz
09-20-2007 12:54 PM
|
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
it's a good start at least, i guess. give them the rights and protections now, and the name later. it's not the best of options, but it may be the only thing we can do right now. not doing anything because it's not the perfect right is like not bailing out a sinking boat just because it doesn't plug the hole. it still keeps your ass from drowning. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by Taz, posted 09-20-2007 12:54 PM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by Taz, posted 09-20-2007 1:21 PM | | macaroniandcheese has replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
{off topic stuff hidden}
But the fact that we have to compromise to the hate-filled people, especially in this time and age, makes no sense. The kind of prejudice that we are compromising with is staggering at this point in time and this place of all the places on Earth. If "civil union" came like 30 or 50 years ago, I would have accepted it with open arms. But we are in the 21st century for goodness sakes. We've already seen how history of prejudice has repeated itself over and over and over again. We've seen the extremes of the most extremes (slavery and the holocaust). We've seen compromise after compromise that were complete bullshit. We should really have a better sense than keep trying to compromise with the bigots. God supposedly made us all with the inalienable right to pursue our happiness in our own ways as long as we do not violate other people's rights to happiness. Why on earth are we still trying to appease the same fucking morons that persecuted the jews for ages, burned witches, kidnapped and enslaved the Africans, treated women like dirt, gave the newly freed ex-slaves piss-poor rights, ... you know, the same morons that killed Mathew Sheppard and then gave him a whole minute of news coverage before going back to Clinton's sex life for another 3 months? No, I'm not happy at all. Just because the boat is sinking doesn't mean I have to eat a bowl of christian shit. Like I said, either we all drink out of the same drinking fountain or we don't. The rest of you people can celebrate about this civil union bullshit if you want. I'm not going to budge until I see gay people get treated the way they deserve, like the rest of us. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
|
|
Message 44 of 84 (423243)
09-20-2007 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Taz
09-20-2007 1:21 PM
|
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
the problem is that our laws are passed by a majority. you have to work with the system to get what you want. we're not appeasing anyone, we're giving them something that gets the job done that they'll actually vote for. little battles work wonders. if you don't give them something they'll vote for, then you get nothing. and something is better than nothing. i'm not celebrating, i'm saying you take what you can get until we can work harder to change people. remember, the gay rights movement is about 20-30 years behind the civil rights movement. they got a late start. we're moving at a good pace. the solution is to work harder to educate people and slowly make the advances you can. fighting losing battles only frustrates everyone. besides. this is about two people being allowed to live together and enjoy the protection of the law in the relationship they've chosen. a civil union does that. they get the same rights and protections. we can work on the semantics later. for now, they get to make a legal commitment just like the rest of us. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Taz, posted 09-20-2007 1:21 PM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by Taz, posted 09-20-2007 1:41 PM | | macaroniandcheese has replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
{Off-topic contents hidden}
bren writes: the problem is that our laws are passed by a majority.
The nazis also got the majority vote. Just because the majority believe in something doesn't make it good. Let me give you an example of why this civil union bullshit doesn't work for some, which is the whole point of the seperate but equal bullshit. I know someone that is madly in love with another person of the same sex. The problem is this other person lives in another country. After some years in the US, he is now finally a citizen. But he can't bring the other person over at all. On the other hand, I can simply click a few buttons on the internet and buy myself a mail order bride from a country like Poland or China. But that's not all. Some companies actually offer full refund if the sex ain't great. Or I can go to vegas and marry a random female and get a divorce 52 hours later. Or I can be like Rush Limbaugh and his ex-wives and repeatingly marry and divorce 5 times. Will civil union on a state level help my friend live with his partner in a place that they both can have economic and political opportunities like the rest of us? I'm not saying civil union isn't an improvement from nothing. I'm saying the improvement is surprisingly staggering at this point in time and place. Added by edit.
besides. this is about two people being allowed to live together and enjoy the protection of the law in the relationship they've chosen. a civil union does that. they get the same rights and protections. we can work on the semantics later. for now, they get to make a legal commitment just like the rest of us.
Black children could go to different schools than white children. Black people could sit in the back of the bus and white people could sit in front. Black people could use different bathrooms than white people. Black people could drink off of different drinking fountains than white people. Blah blah blah blah. We can work on the details later. {/rant} Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
™ Version 4.2