Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

Tell me, what part of that says that any trace of anything remotely religious must purged from all governmental instituions with blood fire and sword (ok, that last part should probably be replaced with "court edict and sinister lies," but my line sounds cooler)?

Well, as Thomas Jefferson noted, the first amendment creates a "wall of separation" between church and state. There's also the fact that the Supreme Court has a history of ruling in favour of keeping the church out of schools and law.

[Sithdarth]

That is one of the greatest lies purpetrated by the secular left. The only thing that comes close is their claim that the Second Amendment protects the federal gov'ts right to keep an armed force in your state (the National Guard; paid for with federal money and based on federal land). Read the establishment clause again (or, as it may be, for the first time).

This a mistake a lot of people make. Namely thinking something has to be literally spelled out in the constitution to be effectively in the constitution. It is the Supreme Courts job to interpret what the wording of the constitution really means. This gives them the leeway to say that since the government isn't supposed to be making laws that restrict religion, and any laws promoting a religion would be restrictive to other religions, there shalt not be any religion in government. It all about keeping the spirit of freedom to practice any religion which can't happen under a government that presents a legal bias towards one religion.

[Archbio]

Secular is being used in a peculiar and jarring way.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Archbio

False. He hasn't touched on the issue, at best, since December 7, 2006.

You linked Harper saying as far as he was concerned the issue was closed? Who is that proving wrong, there exactly? Me, or Joshelplex? The issue itself is constantly being cycled around in the government, that much is understood, but you certainly can't accuse Harper of forcing the issue one way or the other.

"We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," said Harper. "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

He also said the government has "no plans" to introduce a defence of religions act, to protect religious institutions from being forced to marry same-sex couples.

"If Mr. Harper was serious about outlawing same-sex marriage, he would have put in a resolution to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and he wasn't willing to pay that political price."

Both Harper and Dion had said they would allow their MPs to vote their conscience.

Again I say, Harper seldom has very much to say about the issue, and he certainly isn't "wanting to try and get rid of gay marriage for not being of wholesome Christian values" the way Joshelplex stated. So therefore, he completely misrepresented Harper's political/religious viewpoint. Harper's only touching on the issue was basically saying he didn't care one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, Harper doesn't involve himself in the same-sex marriage debate.

[Toast]

42petunias, sorry for not being clear on that. When I was in high school (almost five years ago, god I feel old) all we learned about evolution started with a historical context, about Darwin and Mendel and trait squares, and that was essentially it. I assumed any study of creationism or intelligent design would be similarly brief.

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

* Way to completely generalize all Christians (funny, that seems to be what you were arguing against doing). Incidentally, thats one of the main problems I have witht he anti-Christian secularists (ok, I know that they're against all religions, but its not PC to go after the Jews, and they're too afraid to go after the Muslims, so they usually just beat on the Christians 'cause they know they can).

Just who are these anti-Christian secularists? I think one of the reasons Christians get 'beat on' as you say is because they're so pervasive. Every Jew and Muslim that I've ever known (admittedly not very many) have been content to keep their religious views to themselves and carry our conversations as individuals, as people, and not as members of any particular religion.

Most Christians, on the other hand, automatically assume that I'm also Christian. They tend to be quite taken aback when I tell them that I'm not. Even my pagan friends think of religion as a very private thing, but considering it was Christians that labeled them as pagan (it's sort of stuck, it seems) and not the name they had for themselves sort of lends some credence to my point.

I know I am generalizing here a bit, but the fact remains that Christianity has gotten a bad reputation over the past several decades as consisting largely of bible pushing, invasive, and prejudiced dealings with other people. Such stereotypes had to have a basis somewhere. Maybe not with the people you meet off the street, but certainly many of the more vocal bigots give people a reason for that impression.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Toast

I know I am generalizing here a bit, but the fact remains that Christianity has gotten a bad reputation over the past several decades as consisting largely of bible pushing, invasive, and prejudiced dealings with other people. Such stereotypes had to have a basis somewhere. Maybe not with the people you meet off the street, but certainly many of the more vocal bigots give people a reason for that impression.

I might be off, but I think that's more because Christianity is the dominant religion here, not because christians are particularly bad. I have heard about other religions being pushed out by the church in other countries (primarily Islamic ones, I think) so it might just be that religions are just pushy in general when they represent most of the population.

[Archbio]

You linked Harper saying as far as he was concerned the issue was closed? Who is that proving wrong, there exactly? Me, or Joshelplex?

He said that the issue was closed after holding a vote on it.

You said that he hasn't even touched on the issue since coming into power. That statement has been proven wrong.

Harper's only touching on the issue was basically saying he didn't care one way or the other.

That's also false. What Harper did is present himself as that, but that's only superficial rethoric. Before the election as evasion to soften the image of the program and after the election (once it became apparent any action in that sense was doomed to failure) to save face. His true convictions on the matter are unknown and irrelevant. His position was never neutral. Holding a vote wasn't neutral.

I know that he campaigned for the Conservative Party saying that he had no position and that he'd just hold a free vote, but at that time his campaign had as it's objective the election of candidates, canditates who could be counted on to vote against it.

Harper appearing unconcerned about it on national television was publicity for candidates who had definite intentions and for a party with a specific program.

Joshelflex could have been writing the unaldurated truth, for all I know, and Harper has only himself to blame for the suspicion.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Archbio

He said that the issue was closed after holding a vote on it.

Which he said he was going to do before being elected because members of his party wanted it to be done.

You said that he hasn't even touched on the issue since coming into power. That statement has been proven wrong.

I said he hadn't the last time I checked. Apparently the last I checked was inaccurate. The point still stands he hasn't his own opinion on the issue.

That's also false. What Harper did is present himself as that, but that's only superficial rethoric. Before the election as evasion to soften the image of the program and after the election (once it became apparent any action in that sense was doomed to failure) to save face. His true convictions on the matter are unknown and irrelevant.

Hang on... your first sentence and your second sentence don't work together. I said he presents himself as he doesn't care, you say thats false, but that he presents himself that way? The hell??? How do you know its only superficial rhetoric? In this situation, I'm pretty sure I'm going by whats been said and whats been done. You're essentially making up an opinion for him that you don't know he has. For all you know, he DOESN'T care one way or the other.

I know that he campaigned for the Conservative Party saying that he had no position and that he'd just hold a free vote, but at that time his campaign had as it's objective the election of candidates, candidates who could be counted on to vote against it.

Then why don't you simply say that most Conservatives are anti-gay marriage, rather than singling out Harper? Because if you did, you'd be right instead of wrong.

Harper appearing unconcerned about it on national television was publicity for candidates who had definite intentions and for a party with a specific program.

Joshelplex could have been writing the unadulterated truth, for all I know, and Harper has only himself to blame for the suspicion.

Maybe he was right. Maybe Harper IS anti-gay. But since the FACTS tell us that he's not, and even members of his own party think he's not, I'm going to have to say that he's not. If Joshelplex stated that he thinks Harper is against gays, thats fine. But he outright said that Harper is trying to ban gay marriage, which is HIGHLY questionable since Harper hasn't been giving the issue much effort at all. It was a pretty bold claim to make for the lack of evidence behind it, and thats my point. You can argue back and forth whether he is or not all you want, and having crossed lines with you in the past, you probably will, but until he actually does something about it, this statement

Originally Posted by Lord of Joshelplex

I personally believe religion should stay in churches. Too often, I see it used as an excuse by the government, (Harper wanting to try and get rid of gay marriage for not being of wholesome Christian values)

was completely unfounded, and Harper certainly isn't using religion as an excuse for anything. I'm not even sure he considers himself particularly religious beyond attending a church.

[Archbio]

I said he hadn't the last time I checked. Apparently the last I checked was inaccurate.

That's a fairly odd way of putting it.

I said he presents himself as he doesn't care, you say thats false, but that he presents himself that way?

Sorry, I misread your post as going farther than that.

Maybe Harper IS anti-gay. But since the FACTS tell us that he's not

Your phrasing here is misleading. The facts tell us that, at best, Harper is purely uninterested by these issues (and the people involved), and that's going by how he chose to present himself to the public.

How do you know its only superficial rhetoric?

Because it was rethoric (repeated and emphatic) that didn't match with the actual position Harper was taking by campaigning as the leader of the Conservative Party with a specific program. I don't care if he didn't care. The fact that he says that he didn't care, as if that somehow affected his material position was a point of evasive rethoric. It had a clear political purpose. If it reflected Harper's opinions then that's incidental.

Then why don't you simply say that most Conservatives are anti-gay marriage, rather than singling out Harper?

Joshelplex did. Joshelplex' opinion, your original statement, my response to that statement and my opinion on Harper are all distinct things. I did single out Harper in that I don't think that portraying his position as neutral is accurate, even if he acted out of pure opportunism. My opinion is essentially different from Joshelplex is that my objection to Harper's rethoric was centered on his deliberate shielding of the Conservative Party's program by making the issue of same-sex marriage during the campaign about his supposed lack of opinion. Opinion which, as you point out, we had/have no means to verify, and is/was irrelevant.

What was relevant is that each elected Conservative candidate meant a vote against same-sex marriage (in a vote enabled by Harper in word and then in action) and that Harper trying to deflect attention away from that (by using his stated opinion) was part of getting them elected. That's what I meant by "Harper's position".

But he outright said that Harper is trying to ban gay marriage[...] but until he actually does something about it

He made a promise he would try and he did. Within the range of political expediency and considering that the game was mostly played the moment he failed to get a majority government, of course. That's good enough for me.

Harper certainly isn't using religion as an excuse for anything

He did personally use religion during the campaign (if superficially), but I don't think he linked religion and any specific policy in front of a wide audience. In as much as Joshelplex implies that then I'd agree that they're wrong.

You can argue back and forth whether he is or not all you want, and having crossed lines with you in the past, you probably will[...]

Don't worry about that. This was my last post on the subject, which seems to be off-topic in any case. That is, the subject of Harper and same-sex marriage. Indeed, that has little to do with religion that can be discussed, as you say (unlike opposition to same-sex marriage in a more general sense.) Of course, in the interest of not making me eat those words and post again on the topic, I'd appreciate if you used Private Messaging if you thought there were some new points or objections you'd like to present to me. Otherwise I think I've said all I wanted to say and understood the gist of your points as presented.

[Darth SS]

Way to completely generalize all Christians (funny, that seems to be what you were arguing against doing). Incidentally, thats one of the main problems I have witht he anti-Christian secularists (ok, I know that they're against all religions, but its not PC to go after the Jews, and they're too afraid to go after the Muslims, so they usually just beat on the Christians 'cause they know they can).

Way to completely miss my point. Did I say at any point "Yah, all Christians ever do this." Did I say "This is entirely exclusive to Christians."

Fuck! Is it just silly of me to assume that when we say something in this thread we are all mature enough to assume that we don't honestly expect every member of that religion ever to behave like that? Couldn't we just fucking assume that perhaps, emphasis on the perhaps, we are referring to the less-than moderates here? Can't we just focus on the message meant to be conveyed, in this case "Not being religious =/= bad person."

Moderates in this case being the people who keep quiet. You know, who are happy with their faith, and don't feel the overwhelming to try to sodomize the rest of us "lowly sinners" with their faith at every turn?


Or is the issue here that you simply can't handle not being victimized, and having to actually justify yourself instead of screaming "That other guys' putting us down! Look! Look everyone! I'm being opressed and discriminated against!"