Republicans and right wing Christians

[Miss Jasmine]

caity, thanks for those. I still have issues with the ACLU and with the way Christians are thought of in this country. I hate hearing that what I believe is wrong, and what others believe is right. I hate hearing that I must be some extremist because I believe life begins at conception, that marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman, and that there is a greater power who one day I will answer to.

Did I agree with the Amendment? No. It's sad that it has all come to this. Do I think gay marriage is right? No. Can I understand why gay peole want to be married? Yes. As a Christian it is tough to live in the world right now. You all can sit there and say most of this country is Christian. And yes, there are a lot of people who are, the majority are. But yet there is a smaller group, like myself, who takes the bible literally, who are torn over this issue. It is not my place to judge. But yet I don't want to see things happen that I don't believe in, that I do believe to be wrong. Just like some people don't want "God" to be in the pledge, who don't believe in a prayer or moment of silence before a school function. It's tough. I pray about matters such as these, a lot. I know what God expects, but I also know about Jesus and his compassion for others. And sorry that I subjected you all to my Christian ramblings.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Lanshark
There are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. Not all Christians are "Right Wing" extremists as they are portrayed in the media. The word Christian seems to be getting more of a negative connotation. It's an unfair rap.

Most people I've discussed this amendment with did NOT want it to pass. Most of these people were Christians.

I agree, thia has also been my experience........which makes me wonder why they floated this balloon in the first place? Who was pushing for it? If they were not the majority ( and I don't believe they are ) then why does a minority have the power to push this agenda forward?

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I agree, thia has also been my experience........which makes me wonder why they floated this balloon in the first place? Who was pushing for it? If they were not the majority ( and I don't believe they are ) then why does a minority have the power to push this agenda forward?

\

and here's another question -- I believe that (or at least I want to believe that) my senators in Ohio (who voted "yes') could not have thought they were adequately representing us or that ammending the constitution was a good idea -- so as you said, who was pushing this forward?

 

[jrydberg]

Just a guess, but I'd say they knew full well that it would fail. Bringing the issue up allows them to say to the religious right that they tried. At the same time, the measure did not pass (and they knew it wouldn't), so the downside for pushing this to a vote is lessened.

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Bringing the issue up allows them to say to the religious right that they tried.

and thus making them look like they are a bunch of fanatics that want to mess with the constituion; and thus my original point.

 

[jrydberg]

Honestly, I think in a month or two it'll be largely forgotten by most people. So while they may look bad at the moment, I really don't think the downside is that much. Bear in mind, I'm opposed to messing with the Constitution. But I don't think it'll factor in to most people's votes come November.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
1 - You are free to display "your" commandments anywhere you'd like, so long as it's not on property that I help pay for. If you own a business, you're perfectly free to put the whole list in your letterhead...knock yourself out, nobody is stopping you (and if they did, the ACLU would fight them).

2 - Your holidays may not be my holidays, and vice versa...So, who gets to decide which are "celebrated" and which aren't ? Is someone forcing you to celebrate Kwanzaa ? Of course not (and if they were, the ACLU would step in and fight them).

3 - Is someone stopping you from expressing your beliefs ? Have you been barred from addressing your elected officials because of your beliefs ? Of course not. If someone tried, the ACLU would fight them.

Your problem isn't that groups like the ACLU won't stand up for your beliefs. Your problem appears to be that groups like the ACLU won't stand up for your "right" to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. Sorry, but in that, you're right...they certainly would NOT fight for that.

Wowzers, I find myself in total agreement with all of this.

I don't support every cause the ACLU undertakes, but in their history they have been fairly much equal opportunity defenders of freedom.

As for more legislation... gay marriage opponents are not done yet. More Legislation Against Gay Marriage in the House

 

[faithinkarma]

Wowzers, I find myself in total agreement with all of this.

Ok...this is the third time this week that posters who usually vehemently disagrees with almost everything wvrevy has said, have agreed with him....is it something in the air? I would use a smiley face, but I have lost track of which ones are not offensive.

BTW Steve, ever since you said something about me riding in to defend someone, I cannot escape the mental image of myself on horseback, big long thick braids, absurdly funny headgear, spear in one hand, shield in the other.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Ok...this is the third time this week that posters who usually vehemently disagrees with almost everything wvrevy has said, have agreed with him....is it something in the air? I would use a smiley face, but I have lost track of which ones are not offensive.

I dunno ... maybe I'm mellowing out as I rapidly roll toward the big 5-oh-no!!! Either that or my meds are finally kicking in.

I've agreed with wvrevy before ... albeit a rare occurrence. I just found all his points right on target this time. It is dangerous when any single group seeks to elevate their freedom above everyone else. I'm especially concerned when any one group wants to legislate their concept of morality, too. These things are scary and it shouldn't be too surprising to find people who may normally be political opponents joining ranks in opposing these ideas.

BTW Steve, ever since you said something about me riding in to defend someone, I cannot escape the mental image of myself on horseback, big long thick braids, absurdly funny headgear, spear in one hand, shield in the other.

*SNARF!* I had a similar mental picture yesterday as I wrote. This is getting scary ... I'm starting to agree with and THINK like people I find myself usually disagreeing with. What is happening to me?

 

[Lanshark]

*SNARF!* I had a similar mental picture yesterday as I wrote. This is getting scary ... I'm starting to agree with and THINK like people I find myself usually disagreeing with. What is happening to me?

Been snorting too much Pixie Dust over here on the CB. It wasn't allowed on the DB. Just a little Kumbayah

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Lanshark
Been snorting too much Pixie Dust over here on the CB. It wasn't allowed on the DB. Just a little Kumbayah

Darned PD filter I was sold must not be working. I want a refund!!!

 

[septbride2002]

I just have to add my 2 cents on this issue of gay marriage as Miss Jasmine put it she doesn't agree with it because it goes against her values as a Christian - okay no problem. If the Catholic Church, The Baptist Religion, Lutheran Religions and so on want to come out and say that they will not marry same sex couples then I have no problems with that. The fact of the mather is that these examples are private institutions and can make those decisions.

But it is not the role of the government to come in and deny these people the right to marry or have civil unions and to deny them the rights that all married people have.

It is not the governments role to come in and say we are going to choose the life that you live.

It is not the governments role to condem those that are homosexual.

It is not the governments role to say "well the Bible says it so therefore we must make it law." If this was the case then those that do not believe in the bible would be terribly put out.

It is not the governments role to promote the Christian/Catholic agenda. And while I know not all Christians are in support of this ammendment - take a good long look at your churches and see what they believe.

It is not the governments role to take the opinion of the President, Vice President and so forth and make it law.

People they represent you! If you disagree then let them know. Email your senators and congressmen - and if they do not represent your values then send them packing.

~Amanda

 

[ThreeCircles]

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Amanda, based on our value and belief system that is how we pick who want to represent us. I look for someone who believes in the core values of Chistianity.

But it is not the role of the government to come in and deny these people the right to marry or have civil unions and to deny them the rights that all married people have.

The government isn't coming in and denying people those rights. Those rights were denied LONG ago. And like I said, I didn't agree with the Amendment. I don't think it is something we have to attach to the Constitution.

It is not the governments role to say "well the Bible says it so therefore we must make it law." If this was the case then those that do not believe in the bible would be terribly put out.

But it is ok to put out the people who do believe in the bible.

I am expected to be tolerant of others, but it's okay not to be tolerant of those with Christian beliefs.

Look, we will never agree, never find a middle ground, I am ok with that. While I am respectful of your values and beliefs, try to be respectful of my values and beliefs.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Amanda, based on our value and belief system that is how we pick who want to represent us. I look for someone who believes in the core values of Chistianity.

As defined by you, and that's fine. But you don't get to define the "core beliefs" of christianity for those people on the other side of the aisle that believe differently from you.

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
The government isn't coming in and denying people those rights. Those rights were denied LONG ago. And like I said, I didn't agree with the Amendment. I don't think it is something we have to attach to the Constitution.

Um, no, that is the law that was stricken by the courts, hence the push for a constitutional amendment. The congress can pass laws 'til they're blue in the face, and it won't matter if the court decides that the laws are unconstitutional. (Again...this is 10th grade Social Studies stuff...if it's even that advanced)

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
But it is ok to put out the people who do believe in the bible.

I am expected to be tolerant of others, but it's okay not to be tolerant of those with Christian beliefs.

Look, we will never agree, never find a middle ground, I am ok with that. While I am respectful of your values and beliefs, try to be respectful of my values and beliefs.

Who is not being respectful to the beliefs of christians ? If you don't believe that a man should marry another man or a woman should marry another woman, then by all means you shouldn't do so. But what gives you the right to dictate YOUR morals as the law of the land, and why should I respect them when you obviously don't respect my decision to make moral choices for myself ?

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
But it is ok to put out the people who do believe in the bible.

I am expected to be tolerant of others, but it's okay not to be tolerant of those with Christian beliefs.

I think the issue is that it is not okay to impose your beliefs on others who do not share them. There is a line between tolerance and imposition.

I am a Christian, but I do not take all parts of the Bible literally. For me, the guiding principals of my faith are the words of Jesus when he instructed his followers to treat others as you would like to be treated.

Yesterday Senator Dayton did a good job of articulating what I think in speaking about the Federal Marriage Ammendment. He notes that Jesus never talked about same sex relationships. He said Jesus'

"overriding instruction was to love they neighbor as thyself. That was his second great commandment, which superseded all the rest. Jesus also warned several times to beware of false prophets. People asked "How could they be identified?" He said that they would spread hate, instead of love.

I do not understand how some religions developed their strong prejudices against gays and lesbians---prejudices which are not only unsupported by the Jesus' teachings in the Bible, but which violate his instructions to love one another, as I have loved you, to judge not, lest ye be judged, to spread love, not hatred."

 

[auntpolly]

I'm starting to think that maybe when some people say "less government", they really mean "less taxes". If that's it, that's fine, but admit it. I personally feel like I get the - uh, stuffing, taxed out of me and I don't like it either. This is where my libertarian side comes out. But what exactly do you mean by "less government" if not "getting the government off my back about things that are none of it's business."

Tell the truth -- is this about money?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by auntpolly
I'm starting to think that maybe when some people say "less government", they really mean "less taxes". If that's it, that's fine, but admit it. I personally feel like I get the - uh, stuffing, taxed out of me and I don't like it either. This is where my libertarian side comes out. But what exactly do you mean by "less government" if not "getting the government off my back about things that are none of it's business."

Tell the truth -- is this about money?

Oh, it's about money, but not just taxes. They also believe that corporations should be free to act in any way they feel the need to act, because we all know that they will always *coughenroncough* act in the public interest I mean, no company would ever thoroughly pollute the environment just because it was cheaper than treating their waste products responsibly, would they ? Nah...it's just a tree-huggin-liberal fairy tale

 

[caitycaity]

As a Christian it is tough to live in the world right now.

i'm sure it must be (seriously). it's hard in different ways for people of every religion (or non-religion), i think.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Yeah, caity, I agree.